On 2-okt-04, at 18:25, Paul Vixie wrote:
nycast has worked very well. both inter-AS and intra-AS. the fact
that
a not-clueful-enough engineer *could* build a non-working topology
using
anycast and PPLB as ingredients, does not mean that anycast or PPLB are
bad. it means you have to be clueful-
> Is there situation that multiple root servers installed behine
> multiple routers within one AS?
yes. that situation exists inside cogent, with c-root.
> If router-P enables PPLB, would there be some problem with TCP based
> DNS requests?
your diagram didn't make sense to me so i'll answer wi
>If you use bgp multipath only, that is true. If you turn on PPLB, as
>described in my URL, then that isn't true.
Yup, I think PPLB proper only in situation that multiple physical
links exist between two routers.
And, PPLB is not good for ISPs who tries balancing traffic between
peers.
Joe
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:49 PM
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dnsop] Re: Root Anycast (fwd)
On 1-okt-04, at 2:48, Dean Anderson wrote:
>> Note though that it's *very* hard to create a setup where packets are
>
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Johan Ihrén wrote:
> Dean,
>
> Nothing in the messages quoted below says anything about DNSSEC
> requiring TCP.
>
> Nothing in the protocol specs says anything about DNSSEC requiring TCP.
It is the case that DNSSEC queries may in fact trigger more TCP queries
and that TCP
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 1-okt-04, at 2:48, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> >> Note though that it's *very* hard to create a setup where packets are
> >> delivered to different multicast instances, as it's hard to imagine
> >> how
> >> any real-world anycast setup could mat
Dean,
The following message pretty clearly illustrates the frivolous nature
of
John Brown's "dispute", as he is quite well aware that DNSSEC requires
TCP
queries of the root servers, and in fact has been //advocating// for
it.
And he is also aware of other upcoming technologies and developments
> "Iljitsch" == Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Iljitsch> I think the ship has sailed a long time on whether this
Iljitsch> was going to happen at all. However, now would be a good
Iljitsch> time to start a discussion on how much anycasting is
Iljitsch> enough.
TECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [dnsop] Re: Root Anycast (fwd)
Some time back we were talking about anycast being a bad thing on DNS
Root servers. It was suggested by that conv
On 1-okt-04, at 2:48, Dean Anderson wrote:
Note though that it's *very* hard to create a setup where packets are
delivered to different multicast instances, as it's hard to imagine
how
any real-world anycast setup could match the criteria in
Its quite easy for anycast: (real names used, but not r
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Jim Reid wrote:
> > "Iljitsch" == Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Iljitsch> I think the ship has sailed a long time on whether this
> Iljitsch> was going to happen at all. However, now would be a good
> Iljitsch> time to start a discussion
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Note though that it's *very* hard to create a setup where packets are
> delivered to different multicast instances, as it's hard to imagine how
> any real-world anycast setup could match the criteria in
Its quite easy for anycast: (real names
The following message pretty clearly illustrates the frivolous nature of
John Brown's "dispute", as he is quite well aware that DNSSEC requires TCP
queries of the root servers, and in fact has been //advocating// for it.
And he is also aware of other upcoming technologies and developments that
w
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, John Brown CT wrote:
> Couple of points here.
>
> 1. Typical DNS queries are via UDP, not TCP.
> Thus the noise Dean is making here about things breaking
> because of TCP issues, is well noise.
Noise about TCP, yes.
> Keep in mind that DNS queries are UDP. The
On 29-sep-04, at 23:41, Dean Anderson wrote:
Some time back we were talking about anycast being a bad thing on DNS
Root
servers. It was suggested by that conversations typically take only one
path as a result of CEF-like caching. I noted that providers were
working
on per packet load balancing
and network infrastructure)?
> I just know they use anycast but how they choose system
> platform?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:41 AM
> To: [
I just know they use anycast but how they choose system
platform?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [dnsop] Re: Root Anycast
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joe Shen") writes:
> To my understanding, Per-Packet Load Balancing works only in situation
> all DNS servers installed behind the same router, and it CAN NOT
> guarantee sequencing of TCP packets.
yup.
> The first problem of PPLB is , it could not be implemented for a server
18 matches
Mail list logo
