Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca writes:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-02
There are privacy concerns, here. But we might posit that you've
already in the business of trading privacy for convenience if you're
using a public resolver.
Personally, I've always
On 19 June 2015 at 04:18, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 6/18/2015 16:40, Jonas Björk wrote:
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.
One of us is confused (and it may
On 19 Jun 2015, at 8:12, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM, James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just curious, how does DNS load balancing work if people are using
8.8.8.8/208.67.222.222 or basically any public resolvers that cache
and
If the client that
On 19 June 2015 at 10:39, Mike Meredith mike.mered...@port.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:51:31 -0400, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca
may have written:
Since DHCP uses broadcast and multicast addresses when a client is
discovering a server, it's not obvious why you'd have to.
And
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious, how does DNS load balancing work if people are using
8.8.8.8/208.67.222.222 or basically any public resolvers that cache and
have a significant (relatively speaking)
embarassed
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 8:12, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM, James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just curious, how does DNS load balancing work if people are using
You can achieve the above DNS trickery using various load balancers that
other people in this thread have already mentioned. You can also install
your own geomaps in your own nameservers and handle it yourself, or you can
buy managed DNS service from various people that can do this kind of
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:51:31 -0400, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca
may have written:
Since DHCP uses broadcast and multicast addresses when a client is
discovering a server, it's not obvious why you'd have to.
And broadcast/multicast when renewing a lease (DHCPREQUEST). You will
of course see
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM, James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious, how does DNS load balancing work if people are using
8.8.8.8/208.67.222.222 or basically any public resolvers that cache and
don't know exactly, but you might get some interesting clues from the
f-root or
James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious, how does DNS load balancing work if people are using
8.8.8.8/208.67.222.222 or basically any public resolvers that cache and
have a significant (relatively speaking) user-base?
http://www.afasterinternet.com/ietfdraft.htm
Tony.
--
On Jun 18, 2015, at 10:19 PM, James Hartig fastest...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious, how does DNS load balancing work if people are using
8.8.8.8/208.67.222.222 or basically any public resolvers that cache and
have a significant (relatively speaking) user-base? Is the actual percent
of
On 18 Jun 2015, at 7:51, Ray Soucy wrote:
You can certainly do anycast with TCP, and for small stateless
services it
can be effective. You can't do anycast for a stateful application
without
taking the split-brain problem into account.
It's really difficult to apply broad can or can't,
I gave a pretty broad answer because the question was about hosting mail
servers using anycast.
I don't think what I was getting at in regards to stateful vs. stateless
was incorrect, but I was talking about the application level not the nature
of the protocol and throwing TCP in there confused
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:08:13AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Jun 2015, at 7:51, Ray Soucy wrote:
You can certainly do anycast with TCP, and for small stateless services it
can be effective. You can't do anycast for a stateful application without
taking the split-brain problem into
Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu writes:
You can certainly do anycast with TCP, and for small stateless services it
can be effective. You can't do anycast for a stateful application without
taking the split-brain problem into account.
In my experience, the thing that makes anycast work *well* is
On 6/18/2015 16:40, Jonas Björk wrote:
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
While risking being slightly off topic: Does anyone use anycast dhcp servers?
Have you run into any problems considering synching the leases?
On 18/06/2015 20:51, Joe Abley wrote:
Since DHCP uses broadcast and multicast addresses when a client is
discovering a server, it's not obvious why you'd have to.
most non trivial (i.e. routed networks) would use dhcp relay, in which case
anycast dns could be argued to make some sense. TBH,
On 18 Jun 2015, at 15:43, Jonas Björk wrote:
While risking being slightly off topic: Does anyone use anycast dhcp
servers?
Have you run into any problems considering synching the leases?
Since DHCP uses broadcast and multicast addresses when a client is
discovering a server, it's not
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
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
Den 18/06/2015 21.52 skrev Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca:
On 18 Jun 2015, at 15:43, Jonas Björk wrote:
While risking being slightly off topic: Does anyone use anycast dhcp
servers?
Have you run into any problems considering synching the leases?
Since DHCP uses broadcast and multicast
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
On 2015/06/19 4:43, Jonas Björk wrote:
While risking being slightly off topic: Does anyone use anycast dhcp servers?
Have you run into any problems considering synching the leases?
In general, multiple anycast servers on a link, which is the anycast
model of IPv6, is a bad idea, because
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Kurt Kraut via NANOG nanog@nanog.org wrote:
Ray,
Anycast is generally not well-suited for stateful connectivity (e.g. most
things TCP).
I don't know anything that would support that claim. I have been using for
years BGP anycast for audio and video
Ray,
Anycast is generally not well-suited for stateful connectivity (e.g. most
things TCP).
I don't know anything that would support that claim. I have been using for
years BGP anycast for audio and video streaming, always in TCP (RTMP, HLS,
WMS, and even the good and old ShoutCast) and works
Anycast is generally not well-suited for stateful connectivity (e.g. most
things TCP). The use case for anycast is restricted to simple
challenge-response protocol design.
As such, you typically only see it leveraged for simple services (e.g. DNS,
NTP).
The reason for this, as you suspect, is
On Jun 17, 2015, at 17:15, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote:
As such, you typically only see it leveraged for simple services (e.g. DNS,
NTP).
I've been thinking about this for NTP. Wouldn't you end up with constant
corrections with NTP and Anycast?
I am not a time geek, but the
Hamelin
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
As such, you typically only see it leveraged for simple services (e.g.
DNS, NTP).
I've been thinking about this for NTP. Wouldn't you end up with constant
corrections with NTP and Anycast? Or is the assumption your anycasted NTP
Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ray Soucy
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:14 PM
To: Joe Hamelin
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
As such, you typically only see it leveraged for simple services (e.g. DNS,
NTP).
I've
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:07:22PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
What about IPv6? We have a plan! We plan
On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I think you've offered some really bad advice here Bill.
As I said, there are lots of people who _think_ it doesn’t work. And then
there are people who’ve actually done it, and know better.
Besides, you seem to not have read
suggested that he do anycast DNS (presumably
using a DNS service provider) rather than anycast SMTP (presumably using
himself) anyway.
So, regardless of how much you’re rolling your eyes, we’re saying the same
thing. We’re just being testy about the details
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I think you've offered some really bad advice here Bill.
As I said, there are lots of people who _think_ it doesn’t work. And then
there are people who’ve
Uh huh. The numbers are clear: 99.99% of the time it works. The other
0.01% of the time you're screwed and had better pray the user is one
of the ones you can afford to lose.
Unicast TCP breaks too, but it has the virtue of being fixable 100% of the
time.
I love the wry humor on the nanog list.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:49 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or
employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4
assignment
William Herrin wrote:
If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or
employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4
assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an
IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon, even if
it
On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:49 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or
employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4
assignment situation and the /24 announcement
Any luck on a DNS based solution?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place. This does not work so
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:07:22PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
What about IPv6? We have a plan! We plan to be dead before customers
demand IPv6.
I am pretty sure the authors are still alive(?).
and customer demand for ipv6
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br wrote:
Any luck on a DNS based solution?
I'm looking into a F5 GTM solution based out of a colo we have in Europe to
direct SMTP between France and the US hubs. Now I just have to work layers
8 9.
Remember when users didn't
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
It seems to be more of a last-mile backhoe fade issue right now. I'm
trying to convince them that a manufacturing facility isn't a good place
for a data center.
Backhoes seem to have gotten you for a day or so now. My mail
world, he won't be doing anycast any time soonâ¦
â¦which is one of the reasons why I suggested that he do anycast DNS
(presumably using a DNS service provider) rather than anycast SMTP
(presumably using himself) anyway.
So, regardless of how much youâre rolling your eyes, weâre saying
On Jun 15, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when one site goes
down. My
On Jun 15, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
dns is udp
15 years ago when we set up 4.2.2.1, there was a fair amount of TCP based DNS.
We tried for a bit to support it via the anycast address, but ultimately we
decided the support issues weren’t worth it. The few
Well we, Genuity, use to use Cisco Distributed Director to do this. Basically
it was a DNS server that ran on a Cisco Router, and could use a lot of
different metrics to give an answer, which included routing based metrics.
Johno
On Jun 15, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
'when one site goes down' ... then the other works fine, right? smtp
is not latency sensitive in the sense that a 30second timeout for a
server will mean delivery to the secondary... right?
The two MX sites
On 15/06/2015 19:09, William Herrin wrote:
Anycast + TCP = much pain, for reasons which should be obvious.
This was presented at some conference or other a couple of years ago:
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/matt.levine.pdf
Nick
Give a look at hosted GSLB service, FortiDirector, which I have set up for a
customer (for SMTP, Exchange, ActiveSync world wide services.
Le 15 juin 2015 à 19:50, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com a écrit :
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe.
On Jun 15, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when one site goes
down. My
[j...@nethead.com]
Received: Montag, 15 Juni 2015, 19:51
To: NANOG list [nanog@nanog.org]
Subject: Anycast provider for SMTP?
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
Or you could skip the MX records, and just put both US and European
SMTP servers on the same IP address, which would save a lot of
steps and simplify the system, but leave you with the _very_
occasional corner-case of someone
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Okay, granted you can probably cover your corner case here with a
priority 20 MX that leads to a unicast address on one of the two
servers. SMTP can let the rare fellow with the bisected packet flow
gracefully fall back.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 15/06/2015 19:09, William Herrin wrote:
Anycast + TCP = much pain, for reasons which should be obvious.
This was presented at some conference or other a couple of years ago:
: Montag, 15 Juni 2015, 19:51
To: NANOG list [nanog@nanog.org]
Subject: Anycast provider for SMTP?
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
My solution will be to place a load balancer in a hosting site
(virtual, of course) and have it provide HA. But what about HA for the
LB? At first glance anycasting would seem to be a great idea but there is
a problem of
Hi Joe,
On 15 Jun 2015, at 13:50, Joe Hamelin wrote:
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and
one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when one site
goes
down. My solution will
I have a mail system where there are two MX hosts, one in the US and one in
Europe. Both have a DNS MX record metric of 10 so a bastardized
round-robin takes place. This does not work so well when one site goes
down. My solution will be to place a load balancer in a hosting site
(virtual, of
but 'well behaved smtp clients' should already be falling back right?
If you have multiple SMTP servers at the same priority, it's a pretty
broken client that doesn't try them all until one works.
That said, there is a depressing number of pretty broken SMTP clients.
R's,
John
I could be mistaken, but you might get all of this done with AWS's Route53.
I would read this:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/routing-policy.html#routing-policy-geo
The other step would be to setup HA in each SMTP node (US and France) such
as LB or Failover. Just an
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
The two MX sites are connected via third party MPLS. The problem is when
one MX site loses Internet connectivity the sending MTA may take up to 4
hours to resend and hopefully the DNS coin toss gives it the address of the
I see no major problems to use anycast for that.
The problem will be in rare case when particular routing chain from
client to one of your servers will be changed until TCP stream is active.
SMTP have short connections. Even if it happens, it will look as just
broken connection for client, and
On 15 Jun 2015, at 15:05, Dave Taht wrote:
I have been using anycast at a small scale on mesh networks, for dns,
primarily. Works.
Many of us have been using anycast at Internet scale for DNS for a
couple of decades. I would go further than works and perhaps say
necessary.
There were some
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br
wrote:
The other step would be to setup HA in each SMTP node (US and France) such
as LB or Failover. Just an idea.
I'll look at the AWS doc, thanks.
The mailserver is seldom the problem (it's an AS/400) but the ISP pipe
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 15 Jun 2015, at 15:05, Dave Taht wrote:
I have been using anycast at a small scale on mesh networks, for dns,
primarily. Works.
Many of us have been using anycast at Internet scale for DNS for a couple of
decades. I
You're welcome. I hope that helps.
On another note, if your internet pipe in Europe isn't as stable as your
pipe in the US, then you could also try and have your infrastructure
provider blend your uplink with two or more carrier-grade paths. You
wouldn't have to worry about signing up for and
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br wrote:
You're welcome. I hope that helps.
On another note, if your internet pipe in Europe isn't as stable as your
pipe in the US, then you could also try and have your infrastructure
provider blend your uplink with two or
What about IPv6? We have a plan! We plan to be dead before customers
demand IPv6.
I am pretty sure the authors are still alive(?).
and customer demand for ipv6 still holds strong, right?
I have been using anycast at a small scale on mesh networks, for dns,
primarily. Works.
dns is udp
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
What about IPv6? We have a plan! We plan to be dead before customers
demand IPv6.
I am pretty sure the authors are still alive(?).
and customer demand for ipv6 still holds strong, right?
Does seem to be on the uptick!
I have
69 matches
Mail list logo
