North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Who broke .org?

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Thu Jul 01 23:14:52 2004



Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

I guess I'll ask first...


There was a gentleman a while back that posited that having only two anycast NS records was broken by design. Suggested that while servicing the whole TLD from two NS that were really a little army of anycast clusters all around out there was very 'l33t', it would not hurt overly much if - say 2 or up to 11 of these clusters were also identified and available by good old fashioned unicast in the NS records for the zone.

Seems to work for "."

Something about "eggs all in one basket". The basket being the anycast topology. Even should the topology be bulletproof overall, his point was that even a partial failure, if it failed "closed" could leave his resolver stuck on non-responsive servers, while perfectly good ones were still out there.

Come to think about it, there was a thread here a while back about this very thing. root server robustness and all that.

What number/timeframe reported .org hiccup does this make?

Is it just this anycast deployment? Has f-root anycast ever reported any stray problems causing some outage to somebody somewhere, were they to be relying on f and only f?

Does nobody else think this?

What about algorithms in recursive resolvers? How about trying first arbitrary "close" or "optimal" ns, if no response try TWO of the remaining next best candidates, then try FOUR of the remaining.....until all are gone and we restart the loop at 1 (to be nice) until request is timed out or one answers and becomes "optimal", with periodic probing or looping across the list for freshness. After all the irrelevant junk the roots and near roots get, some enthusiastic legit retries may not even be unwelcome.

I know I shouldnt hit send but....please be gentle.