Re: Fwd: Re: note from the iesg plenary

["Brian Haberman" <haberman@nortelnetworks.com>]

Eliot,
     Yes, I am well aware that DNS is an ideal use of anycast.  That is
part of the reason why v6 anycast is of interest to people.  However,
my point has been to find out if anyone thinks that having 128-bit host
routes in the global routing table is going to scale.  Or, would you
think that anycast DNS deployed within a domain/site/admin scope
region is a better solution?

Brian

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > Can you give me a definition of works boringly well?  Would that
> > entail no calls to the NOC as the measuring stick?
> 
> Because nearly all DNS requests are single packet exchanges AND
> connectionless, there are no adverse consequences for a routing shift, and
> thus DNS is ideal for anycast.  More robustness is needed for connection
> oriented anycast.