[76625] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Anycast 101
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Fri Dec 17 17:55:51 2004
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:53:46 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3hdmky4c7.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
>since i already know that Iljitsch isn't listening, i'm not interested in
>debating him further. i would be interested in hearing from anybody else
>who thinks that turning on pplb in a eyeball-centric isp that has multiple
>upstream paths is a reasonable thing to do, even if there were no anycast
>services deployed anywhere in the world. at the moment i am completely
>certain that turning on pplb would be an irrational act, and would have a
>significant performance-dooming effect on a client population behind it,
>and that the times when pplb would actually be useful and helpful are very
>limited, and that anycast doesn't even enter into the reasons why doing as
>Iljitsch paints would be a bad idea.
>
>but my mind is open, if anyone can speak from experience on the matter.
>
>
I concur -- it's not reasonable.
We debated these issues to death about PPP multi-link, which could be
thought of as some variant of a single node talking to 2 (or more)
disparate routers (NAS's are routers, after all). Can't depend on all
the links attaching to the same dial-in NAS.
Various companies developed protocols to make the NAS's look like a
single router -- otherwise, it wouldn't work.
Plenty of experience. Has nothing to do with anycast.
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
