[29675] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bad idea?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brantley Jones)
Wed Jul 5 12:17:05 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000705110006.00b96ed8@mail.redundant.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:03:09 -0500
To: Jeremiah Kristal <jkristal@on2.com>
From: Brantley Jones <bjones@redundant.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200007051518.LAA00563@duck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:17 AM 7/5/2000 -0400, you 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.
>
>Jeremiah
>being a customer stinks
If you have cisco, you could use a BGP non-exist-map and advertise-map and
conditionally advertise that globally routable block in the case of an
outage, or have your provider do so. The main concern here being a
flapping interface, of course. Does anyone know of a way to get around the
flapping/dampening issue?
Brantley
