I always thought DNS had enough redundancy built-in that this sort of thing wouldn't really have much effect. But here I am unable to access websites, simply because name resolution isn't working. If my local DNS server were caching things longer there would largely be no issue.
Yeah, DNS entries are usually (or at least used to be) cached for what would seem like long enough, but I guess it doesn't really work the way it sounds. "a hierarchical decentralized naming system [that] provides distributed and fault tolerant service and was designed to avoid a single large central database" doesn't sound like it should be so fragile. Having single 'authoritative' servers for the sort of thing that should be inherently distributed sounds more like an Achilles heel.
