Re: Humble requests about well known address approach

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

I wrote:

>    When an anycast server fails,
>    some datagrams may continue to be mistakenly routed to the server,
> 
> Note also that even the RFC made a mistake to state:
> 
>    the ARP
>    hack, requires ARP cache timeouts for the anycast addresses be kept
>    small (around 1 minute), so that if an anycast server goes down,
>    hosts will promptly flush the ARP entry and query for other servers
>    supporting the anycast address.
> 
> which actually is a useless configuration to be avoided, failure to
> do so affected several points of the RFC.

I mean the configuration is useless, because robustness/reliability
is implicitely assumed, which is almost, if not entirely, useless.

If multiple servers in a subnet shares an anycast address, which is the
situation of the quoted text, there is even less robustness/reliability
than situation with topologically isolated servers, because a single
route failure equally affects all the servers in the subnet.

						Masataka Ohta


#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.