Subject: Humble requests about well known address approach

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:53:15 +0900

Anyone want to post on well know addresses approach, please
read the draft

	draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-00.txt

which is only 4 pages long.

In addition, please keep in mind that anycast itself does not
offer robustness/redundancy though load sharing can be, depending
on configuration, expected to some degree.

Reading RFC1546, in addition, may also be, though too old, helpful,
which states:

   DNS resolvers would
   no longer have to be configured with the IP addresses of their
   servers, but rather could send a query to a well-known DNS anycast
   address.

and

   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.

						Masataka Ohta

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:49:51 +0900

> 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