[dns-operations] On server selection algorithms in dns resolvers

[Mark Jeftovic]

But why don't you just make 2 a little bit more reliable?

* long pause *

But these go up to three.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Robert Edmonds <edmonds at mycre.ws> wrote:
> 
> Edward Lewis wrote:
>> I was mostly puzzled why they bothered to use 3 (and not 2) as the number
>> of NS and A records.  This is why it stuck in my head.
> 
>    "Oh, I see. And most organizations only have two nameservers?"
> 
>    "Exactly."
> 
>    "Does that mean it's better? Is it any more reliable?
> 
>    "Well, it's one more nameserver, isn't it? It's not two. You see,
>    most sysadmins, you know, will just have two nameservers. You're on
>    two here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're got
>    two nameservers serving DNS requests. Where can you go from there?
>    Where?"
> 
>    "I don't know."
> 
>    "Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra bit of
>    reliability, you know what we do?"
> 
>    "Install a third one."
> 
>    "Three. Exactly. One more."
> 
> -- 
> Robert Edmonds
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
> dns-jobs mailing list
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs