[29670] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bad idea?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Devin P. Anderson)
Wed Jul 5 11:52:59 2000
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:50:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Devin P. Anderson" <devin@stargate.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E139rFi-000K0M-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10007051148310.4851-100000@camel.hq.sgi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> Given a small, globally routable netblock to be used for front-end web
> >> servers, and a strong aversion for using DNS for any type of load
> >> balancing, would it be reasonable to build two identical servers farms
> >> with the same public IP addresses and rely on the BGP sessions with the
> >> hosing providers to remove one advertisement in the event of a problem?
> >> I've been looking at ways to ensure that the webservers are always
> >> available, short of building a network connecting hosting facilities.
> >
> > Dude, saying things like that on this group is likely to get you executed.
> > Building a discontigious AS isn't the answer.
>
> i missed the part where he said discontiguous as. please point it out to
> us.
'short of building a network connecting hosting facilities' and numbering
the servers with the sames addresses. Maybe I misunderstood. Its seems to
me that a better way to do it would be to use some product that goes
global load balancing.
later-
devin
