North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: History of 4.2.2.2. What's the story?
- From: Joe Abley
- Date: Sun Feb 14 18:04:35 2010
On 2010-02-14, at 17:43, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
Using three consecutive addresses doesn't remove
single points of failure in the routing system.
That depends on how the routes for those destinations are chosen, and
what routing system you're talking about.
For distribution of a service using anycast inside a single AS, and
with one route per service, it makes no difference whether the
addresses are adjacent. Two /24 routes are no more stable than two /32
routes within an IGP. There's no prefix filtering convention to
accommodate, here.
If their goal is distribute a service for the benefit of their own =
customers, then keeping all anycast nodes associated with that
service =
on-net seems entirely sensible.
Which only helps if *all* customers of those servers are also on net.
Whether it helps depends on what Level3's goals are. This is not
public infrastructure; this is a service operated by a commercial
company.
For what it's worth, I have never heard of an ISP, big or small,
deciding to place resolvers used by their customers in someone else's
network. Perhaps I just need to get out more.
Joe
|
