Mika Liljeberg wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 13:23, Brian Haberman wrote:
Mika Liljeberg wrote:
I just spotted the following: the RR mechanism sends HoT to the anycast
address. How does that work? It might go to a completely different
server.
There is an assumption that there won't be a routing change on
the anycast address between the first TCP SYN and the HoT. Given
the other problems a routing change would have, I feel it is a
reasonable trade-off.
I'm just wondering if this holds true for load balancers. For
transaction type application one might want to send each connection to a
different server.
The load balancer that I am aware of would actually use the source
address of the incoming packet as part of the algorithm to determine
which server to send the packet to. So, for a short period of time,
packets with the anycast destination address and the same unicast
source address would be sent to the same server.
Now, I can't say that scenario is the common way to implement load
balancers.
Susceptibility to DoS attacks is another consideration that needs some
attention, I think. The RR mechanim in MIPv6 is designed to require no
state in CN, but in the anycast RR mechanisms the roles are reversed:
here the anycast server is the one holding state.
Is that really true? What about the Binding Cache?
To me, with this anycast approach, the anycast server is the mobile
node and the client is the correspondent node. The mobile node
and the anycast server both hold state that identifies the home
address (anycast address) and the care-of address (unicast address).
Regards,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
