Re: Anycast DNS - LB/LTM

2012-03-12 Thread ju wusuo
Klein To: ju wusuo Cc: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 3:31 PM Subject: Re: Anycast DNS - LB/LTM Exactly. The script runs inside the LTM, and wraps "nslookup" or "dig". It should output a distinct output for success, and another dist

Re: Anycast DNS - LB/LTM

2012-03-10 Thread David Klein
> issue, stop the advertising? > > -- > *From:* David Klein > *To:* ju wusuo > *Cc:* "bind-users@lists.isc.org" > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 7, 2012 11:18 PM > *Subject:* Re: Anycast DNS > > > You would need to create a custom scr

Re: Anycast DNS - LB/LTM

2012-03-09 Thread ju wusuo
Klein To: ju wusuo Cc: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 11:18 PM Subject: Re: Anycast DNS You would need to create a custom script to use as your monitor, which does a lookup of an address that you know will always be in your domain. If that fails,

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-03-07 Thread David Klein
You would need to create a custom script to use as your monitor, which does a lookup of an address that you know will always be in your domain. If that fails, force-down/inactive the node, and tie this script as a monitor to the pool holding the DNS server nodes. You can advertise the /32 containi

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-03-07 Thread ju wusuo
thanks everyone for all responses with the great inputs .. now if I want to put the DNS servers behind LBs, 1) would the LTMs be able to announce the routes dynamically for the DNS servers, and a VIP can be withdrawn when the site is gone? 2) would the LTMs be able to detect a DNS service fai

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-03-01 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than one address, > > > some times even on the same subnet, any considerations or reasons for > > > doing that? > > > > We do that. > > > > We use two different, indepentent methods to route traffi

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-03-01 Thread sthaug
> > Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than one address, > > some times even on the same subnet, any considerations or reasons for > > doing that? > > We do that. > > We use two different, indepentent methods to route traffic to the IPs. > We feel this provides a greater degre

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-03-01 Thread Phil Mayers
On 29/02/12 03:55, ju wusuo wrote: Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than one address, some times even on the same subnet, any considerations or reasons for doing that? We do that. We use two different, indepentent methods to route traffic to the IPs. We feel this provides

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-03-01 Thread Phil Mayers
On 01/03/12 03:40, Beavis wrote: Just want to piggy back on this topic is there any documentation available online that shows a deployment guideline for Anycast? There's not much to it: 1. Create the anycast IP on your servers 2. Route the anycast IP to your servers 3. Make bind listen on t

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread Peter Andreev
2012/3/1 Beavis > Just want to piggy back on this topic is there any documentation > available online that shows a deployment guideline for Anycast? > > -beavis > What about RFC 4786? > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Todd Snyder wr

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread Beavis
Just want to piggy back on this topic is there any documentation available online that shows a deployment guideline for Anycast? -beavis On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Todd Snyder wrote: > >> The reason I’ve heard a few times is that user

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread Warren Kumari
On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Todd Snyder wrote: > The reason I’ve heard a few times is that users are uncomfortable using only > 1 address. In the past I’ve done 2 or 3 addresses just so that we can give > out 3 addresses that all point to the same pool of servers. > > Silly, I know, but so

RE: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread Todd Snyder
The reason I've heard a few times is that users are uncomfortable using only 1 address. In the past I've done 2 or 3 addresses just so that we can give out 3 addresses that all point to the same pool of servers. Silly, I know, but sometimes it's easier to placate than to change someone/groups

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , Oliver Garraux wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, takizo wrote: > > Ju, > > > > What do you mean on more than one address? > > > > -- > > Paul Ooi > > > > > > > > On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:55 AM, ju wusuo wrote: > > > > Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread Oliver Garraux
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, takizo wrote: > Ju, > > What do you mean on more than one address? > > -- > Paul Ooi > > > > On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:55 AM, ju wusuo wrote: > > Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than one address, some > times even on the same subnet, any consider

Re: Anycast DNS

2012-02-29 Thread takizo
Ju, What do you mean on more than one address? -- Paul Ooi On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:55 AM, ju wusuo wrote: > Have seen some anycast DNS implementations using more than one address, some > times even on the same subnet, any considerations or reasons for doing that? > > > > _