[address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Thu Oct 30 19:50:13 CET 2008
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:36:48PM +0100, Florian Weimer <fweimer at bfk.de> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > And BGP does not optimize for RTT, like some resolvers do, so too > much anycast will slow things down a bit. Isn't it a classical case of security/performance trade-off? After the attack on the root name servers on february 2007, most name servers operators are ready to worsen a bit the latency, in order to get more resilience. And, anyway, we are drifting. The issue is not whether name servers operators MUST use anycast-with-several-prefixes but if they CAN do it with the current policy (answer: no, because it is limited to one prefix).
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]