% % On 17-mei-04, at 17:41, Bill Manning wrote: % % > % But as long as we're dissing anycast root DNS servers: how many of % > the % > % root servers are being anycast now or in the future, and how many % > % won't? % % > http://www.rssac.org/ % % > check the 17th & 18th meeting minutes. % % Result: % % Unicast: A, E, H, L % Anycast: B, C, D, F, G, I, J, K, M (now or planned) And in this brave new world, anycast may not equal anycast... :) Consider VRRP. Is that anycast? If not, why not? Any instance of localised load-balancing. Is it anycast? What are the distinctions btwn local/remote loadbalancing? None (to my knowledge) of the roots have a consistant view of a shared anycast vision, so you should not read too much into the summaries found in the RSSAC notes. % The thing that worries me is that apparently, there is no policy about % this whatsoever, the root operators each get to decide what they want % to do. The fact that .org is run using only two anycast addresses also % indicates that apparently the ICANN doesn't feel the need to throw % their weight around in this area. ICANN has no say in the matter, with the exception of "L". There is nothing binding the root operators to a single policy with regard to deployment. But thanks for noticing. :) % It seems to me that any design that makes the root addresses seem as % distributed around the net as possible would be optimal, as in this % case the changes of an outage triggering rerouting of a large number of % root addresses is as small as possible. In order to do this, the number % of root addresses that are available within a geographic region (where % "region" < RIR region) should be limited. Er... geography != network topology. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf