On Jul 2, 2:48pm, Jeff Wasilko <jeffw@smoe.org> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:38:12PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:

...

run .org, I just think a blanket statement "anycast is bad" is, well, bad.)

I'd be totally happy to see a combination, too. It's just pretty obvious that the current solution isn't reliable over the long-haul.

At least the previous outage (a couple of weeks ago) had nothing to do with anycast, I was getting NXDOMAIN replies back, and no kind of fallback or non-anycast deployment would have helped. Anycast functionality is well understood, and is less likely to cause problems than the fact that the servers seem to be under a single "one typo breaks all" management system. True redundancy requires the two sets of servers to be managed by different people doing different things in different ways at different times; this too is well understood, and I'm a little dismayed this (or at least some weaker form thereof) seems not to be the case. (Note I'm saying "seem", I'm just guessing based on the observations I and other people have made.) I think a statement from UltraDNS and/or Public Interest Registry as to what caused the problems would have been, and still is, appropriate, considering the public interest aspect. -- Per