On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Lee <ler...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/1/18, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 4:00 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >>> Better yet, do the job right and build an anycast TCP stack as >>> described here: https://bill.herrin.us/network/anycasttcp.html > > An explosion in state management would be the least of my worries :) > I got as far as your Third hook: and thought of this > https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
Hi Lee, On a brief tangent: Geographic routing would drastically simplify the Internet core, reducing both cost and complexity. You'd need to carry only nearby specific routes and a few broad aggregates for destinations far away. It will never be implemented, never, because no cross-ocean carriers are willing to have their bandwidth stolen when the algorithm decides it likes their path better than a paid one. Even though the algorithm gets the packets where they're going, and does so simply, it does so in a way that's too often incorrect. Then again, I don't really understand the MIT/New Jersey argument in Richard's worse-is-better story. The MIT guy says that a routine should handle a common non-fatal exception. The Jersey guy says that it's ok for the routine to return a try-again error and expect the caller to handle it. Since its trivial to build another layer that calls the routine in a loop until it returns success or a fatal error, it's more a philosophical argument than a practical one. As long as a correct result is consistently achieved in both cases, what's the difference? Richard characterized the Jersey argument as, "It is slightly better to be simple than correct." I just don't see that in the Jersey argument. Every component must be correct. The system of components as a whole must be complete. It's slightly better for a component to be simple than complete. That's the argument I read and it makes sense to me. Honestly, the idea that software is good enough even with known corner cases that do something incorrect... I don't know how that survives in a world where security-conscious programming is not optional. > I had it much easier with anycast in an enterprise setting. With > anycast servers in data centers A & B, just make sure no site has an > equal cost path to A and B. Any link/ router/ whatever failure & the > user can just re-try. You've delicately balanced your network to achieve the principle that even when routing around failures the anycast sites are not equidistant from any other site. That isn't simplicity. It's complexity hidden in the expert selection of magic numbers. Even were that achievable in a network as chaotic as the Internet, is it simpler than four trivial tweaks to the TCP stack plus a modestly complex but fully automatic user-space program that correctly reroutes the small percentage of packets that went astray? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>