iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes: > ... (Selecting the "best" path is pretty much an after thought in > BGP: the RFC doesn't even bother giving suggestions on how to do this.) congradulations, you're the millionth person to think that was an oversight. > I don't have a problem with some controlled anycasting, but the root > operators shouldn't go overboard. i don't think you will ever meet a more conservative bunch of people, so, OK. > For instance, the .org zone is only served by two addresses, which are > then anycast. There have been reports from people who were unable to > reach either of these addresses when there was some kind of reachability > problem. The people managing the .org zone are clearly lacking in > responsibility by limiting the number of addresses from which the zone is > available without any good reason. see the icann agreements to find out how much of this was ultradns's choice. > The situation that must be avoided is where all or most root servers > seem to be in the same location from a certain viewpoint, as a BGP > black hole towards that location will then make them all unreachable. I > would prefer it if several root servers weren't anycast at all, just to > be on the safe side. that's exactly what's likely to continue happening. diversity is good. > (And some IPv6 roots wouldn't be bad either.) there are several. see www.root-servers.org. (now if we can just advertise.) > You missed the point in one of my previous messages: there is no > officially supported way to do zone transfers for the root. This can stop > working at any time. indeed, it's been downhill ever since 10.0.0.53 went away. now it's chaos. -- Paul Vixie