[29677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: bad idea?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Steenbergen)
Wed Jul 5 13:26:12 2000
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:24:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Jeremiah Kristal <jkristal@on2.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007051314320.21550-100000@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jeremiah Kristal 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.
In the event of a route flap, or other instability, you could potentially
have traffic shifted to another server without the established TCP state,
which would prompt that server to generate an RST and end the
connection. If the route then comes back, you end up resetting your
connection for nothing.
Actually, DNS works very well for this kind of thing. Since its a
stateless protocol it isn't affected by this, and once your client has its
answer it continues to use the same IP, which is routed normally. I
believe this is how's Akamai load balancer works (try looking up
www.yahoo.com from a name server on the left coast and on the right
coast). I see absolutily nothing wrong with using DNS in this manner.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
