This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed Aug 8 13:36:59 CEST 2007
-----Original Message----- From: Greg L. [mailto:bgp2 at linuxadmin.org] >Thanks for your response. >Who needs a new /24 PI if you are only going to implement DNS anycast in your own network? Why do you need anycast DNS? Suggestions: * To scale (and keep 100% uptime) * DDoS prevention/reduction of weaknesses The scaling problem has already been solved in my previous email. To take down all of your nameservers, the best way would probably be to generate a lot of DNS queries. But then we are back at the scaling problem which has already been solved. So what is the real problem? Cheers, j
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]