Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?

2015-06-18 Thread Jonas Björk
While risking being slightly off topic: Does anyone use anycast dhcp servers?
Have you run into any problems considering synching the leases?


Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?

2015-06-18 Thread Jonas Björk

 Because clients will switch to unicast for renewal. Also clients will stay
 with the current server forever, so you might have a bad distribution of
 load between the servers. If one server was down everyone will switch to
 the other and never go back until forced.

Why wouldn't they go back to the nearest server when it comes back online?

 Regards
 Baldur


Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?

2015-06-18 Thread Jonas Björk

 On Jun 18, 2015, at 11:29 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
 On 6/18/2015 16:25, Jonas Björk wrote:
 
 Because clients will switch to unicast for renewal. Also clients will stay
 with the current server forever, so you might have a bad distribution of
 load between the servers. If one server was down everyone will switch to
 the other and never go back until forced.
 
 Why wouldn't they go back to the nearest server when it comes back online?
 
 Been awhile, but it seems like they try to renew the lease they have, with 
 the server that holds it.
 
 -- 
 sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

The clients speak unicast with one single ip-helper which address is shared by 
all the servers.
They can't choose which ever server to talk to.

Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4

2015-06-17 Thread Jonas Björk

 Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
 shortsighted.
 
 I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would have to 
 be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most* in-use devices 
 would NEVER see such an update. Even from companies that do still exist. 
 (Sadly, those are also devices that aren't going to see IPv6, either.) 

Most stuff out there do only care about that its subnet mask OR's up correctly 
with its ip and gw. Poof, there did 99.9 per cent of all devices get excluded. 
Most stuff that do use and/or misuse this freightening block of darkest 
cyberspace are either high end network equipment (who drop) or some end 
users/mcast sender which are behind NAT anyway.

I believe it's a great idea. Let's at least try it out, like an alpha-test. We 
choose a temporary /8 (easy to remember) and divide it into /16s or less, 
depending on how many interested candidates we are able to raise. After being 
approved by IANA we begin advertising our new prefixes for a finite amount of 
time. If the world ends, or is about to, we stop.

I believe we would bump into minor caveats but ISP's are beginning to NAT their 
end customers due to the lack of free ips and I wouldn't want to live in a 
world where that was the norm. This madness has to stop and v6 won't salvate us 
for yet another total sonar eclipse or three.

Let us at least try it out - if it goes well we have bought us some time. If 
not, revert.
Thank you for listening.

br /Mr Bjork