[76609] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anycast 101
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Fri Dec 17 10:00:15 2004
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: Michael.Dillon@radianz.com, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:59:07 -0500
In-Reply-To: <OFE43FE785.DCD12969-ON80256F6D.004DF226-80256F6D.004E7571@radianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:16:58 +0000
Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
>
> > That's not the point. If without anycast this is better than with
> > anycast, then this should go on the "con" list for anycast.
>
> People often confuse two separate technical things
> here. One is the BGP anycast technique which allows
> anycasting to be used in an IPv4 network, and the
> other is the application of BGP anycasting to DNS
> in an IPv4 network. It would be clearer if people
> would prefix "anycast" with either BGP or DNS to make
There is also MSDP anycasting, which is both pretty cool and
close to best common practice for anyone running MSDP.
Regards
Marshall
> it clear which they are talking about. Conceivably
> there could be other applications that could be
> distributed using BGP anycast. And if those applications
> are designed knowing the quirks of BGP anycasting
> then presumably they would have ways to overcome
> some of the issues that affect DNS.
>
> I would reword your statement as follows.
>
> ... then this should go on the "con" list for
> DNS anycasting.
>
> --Michael Dillon
