Hi Oliviere,

> This is typically what sysadmins do when they configure web servers or
> other types of servers

Well I meant obviously to ask for other non active IP:Port pairs to be
advertised on active session

> > 2. Do you envision that such addresses may span multiple servers ?
>
> Anycast setting is a load balancing problem that is the target for
> QUIC's preferred address transport parameter

That question was not related to anycast at all. If you allow to advertise
IP:PORT pairs for a service there is no need for anycast.

> The problem is different. A load balancer is typically a single address
> served by a large number of servers.

Well nothing prevents you from running a local process acting as LB/traffic
director on a server too.

Thx a lot,
R.




On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 9:25 AM Olivier Bonaventure <
olivier.bonavent...@uclouvain.be> wrote:

> Robert,
> >
> > Many thx for sharing this proposal. Three easy questions ..
>
> Thanks for your comments
> >
> > 1. Do you envision that IP:PORT pairs would be manually configured by
> > the operator ?
>
> This is typically what sysadmins do when they configure web servers or
> other types of servers, they indicate in the configuration the addresses
> and port the server listens to. On a multihomed server, they either
> indicate they the server should listen to all interfaces or a subset of
> them. This configuration already exist.
>
> > 2. Do you envision that such addresses may span multiple servers ?
>
> Anycast setting is a load balancing problem that is the target for
> QUIC's preferred address transport parameter
>
> > 3. Isn't this a bit overlapping (or to say stronger replacing) function
> > of load balancers ?
> >
>
> The problem is different. A load balancer is typically a single address
> served by a large number of servers. This is currently the main use case
> for QUIC. This is discussed in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers
>
> In the draft, we focus on isolated servers. These could be web servers
> in companies or or example file servers that are running SMB over QUIC
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Olivier
>
>

Reply via email to