[150976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Questions about anycasting setup
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pete Carah)
Fri Mar 9 04:02:58 2012
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:01:53 -0800
From: Pete Carah <pete@altadena.net>
To: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120309081131.GC17726@h.detebe.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 03/09/2012 12:11 AM, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> Bill,
>
> woody@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) wrote:
>
>>> 2. We plan to use this anycasting based setup for DNS during initial few
>>> months. Assuming low traffic for DNS say ~10Mbps on average (on 100Mbps
>>> port) and transit from just single network (datacenter itself) - is this
>>> setup OK for simple software based BGP like Quagga or Bird?
>> Yes, and in fact, that's how nearly all large production anycast networks are built??? Each anycast instance contains its own BGP speaker, which announces its service prefix to adjacent BGP-speaking routers, whether those be your own, or your transit-provider's. Doing exactly as you describe is, in fact, best-practice.
> Well, let's say, using Quagga/BIRD might not really be best practice for
> everybody... (e.g., *we* are using Cisco equipment for this)
Actually there is a *very* good reason why many (most?) anycast
instances use quagga/BIRD/gated/etc
to speak bgp (or even ospf for internal anycast) which using a Cisco (or
any separate router) usually won't accomplish.
-- Pete
>
> Using anycasting for DNS is, to my knowledge, best practice nowadays.
>
>
