-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
Re Bill,
woody@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) wrote:
Well, let's say, using Quagga/BIRD might not really be best practice for everybody... (e.g., *we* are using Cisco equipment for this) How does your Cisco know whether an adjacent nameserver is heavily loaded, and adjust its BGP announcements accordingly?
It doesn't have to.
I don't know how you guys do it, but we take great care to keep min. 70% overhead capacity during standard operation.
RFC 2870 section 2.3 suggests 33%. How us guys do it is 2%-3%, since "standard operation" is only the case when nobody's getting DDoSed. And then we have a backup plan, which is to be able to redirect queries away from nodes that are overloaded. And we have backup plans for the backup plans. But then, we've been doing anycast DNS for twenty years now, so we've had some time to develop those plans. I think what you're hearing from other people, though, is that having a backup plan is, indeed, best practice. -Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPWdE1AAoJEG+kcEsoi3+H2ZsP/2pkKogGXo2THXS4sMPusDdn FdsnWZIk2KDfFdwko7o135Uiv6Lkr9SeuBsFtohbq05Odo6BU1U/KBXWcwiWB/2y umk390F0mgKDx0A0S5TPCwgKFQW+u2ynKCsXGMHIvbn+iTWvBrBaV2XGeF1ukU1H xWqJcXk42GQA7lnqH7vc8HN+SW8Ill9MZp6vqC9ZnWzQ6VyMzZsPWDWPIddgLIhr vvS5lLCGUdUzqkw/dKXBaQrj9UpjipfQrHx4rOd2M1ULVXngsU1MWxvKpSh3HZZz 68m7Z8J/120NrJ3kthQg/YQJTBG01CYP5pkBYVfB/X7TaYYvFEOtyO57VNEZXNyr Km1lkUd/iYrwx/+YCQf4TH7h3hfgvC21lwsp6RRhvGkQcBA8Fs8VPUbrschbcU8f FilndHewhX4zhCNTBhGoeZOAyACOYYib8JwaUOft2JEC40O3NvPjqWXjhK52gpX0 pAhprGo4oDnDGyM6PmO8b5qDdGRA4hyxZq3NwUj+4PI4Lylq34PUE9T2QQVBfRtT 8pKEOyRHgvrmmiYF8Lsvxc2iAze9SZouNqZ7gy1QJ7aikK6LKMp8GQrtgO52AkKm +wYpIaOKpbscjuBpKGNu331R0ula02TCy6eB75rnbcEd0oDQu14bKwyea6ORl/dh yRV2lOxCX4oCYYW1yNHd =Ushc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----