nanog mailing list archives
Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN)
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:36:53 -0800
RFC 7094 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7094) describes the pitfalls & risks of using TCP with an anycast address.and two decades of operational experience are that prudent deployments just work.I agree with Bill/Randy here... this does just work if you understand your local topology and manage change properly.
agree, but would extend ... sometimes s/local// i.e. casting from your edge dumps directly to peers, keeping it off your backbone. but the topo set you have to keep in mind can be large. lots of good research lit on catchment topology of anycasted dns, which is very non-local. randy
Current thread:
- Re: ECN, (continued)
- Re: ECN Tore Anderson (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Warren Kumari (Nov 13)
- TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Anoop Ghanwani (Nov 13)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Bill Woodcock (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) William Herrin (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Randy Bush (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Christopher Morrow (Nov 14)
- Re: TCP and anycast (was Re: ECN) Randy Bush (Nov 14)
- Message not available
- Re: ECN Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Matt Corallo (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Anoop Ghanwani (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Owen DeLong (Nov 13)
- Re: ECN Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via NANOG (Nov 14)
- Re: ECN Jon Lewis (Nov 13)