Title: RE: DNS Based Load Balancers
What would be a better solution then?
-Original Message-
From: Lincoln Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tue Jul 04 18:30:00 2006
To: 'Rodrick Brown'; 'Sam Stickland'
Cc: 'Matt Ghali'; 'Patrick W. Gilmore'; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: DNS
but it's a perfect example of why GSLB based on DNS ain't perfect.
What would be a better solution then?
utopia would be for DNS to be enhanced in some manner such that the 'end
user ip-address' became visible in the DNS request.
utopia would have NAT devices which actually updated that
Stepping back for a moment...Many (most) popular services end up in multiple data centers first because they want to get diversity (of data centers, of ISPs, maybe of pricing). All mission critical sites will be designed such a subset of these data centers can take their entire load if need
On Monday 03 Jul 2006 16:26, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
We are very much anti-spam and I will look into Mark's issue - I'm
looking through the tickets for abuse@ and there is no email sent in
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
I suspect he tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] which seems to be in rfc-ignorant.
It's actually a rather frustrating
situation for people who aren't big enough to justify a /19 and an
AS#, but require geographically dispersed locations answering on the
same IP(s).
If the number of IPs you require is small, then you can
probably solve the problem with IPv4 anycasting.
On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
but it's a perfect example of why GSLB based on DNS ain't perfect.
What would be a better solution then?
utopia would be for DNS to be enhanced in some manner such that the
'end
user ip-address' became visible in the DNS request.
utopia
GSLB based on DNS have one significant shortcoming that moone here has yet
mentioned: they are performing their magic on the location of the
_nameserver_ that issued the query.
this can be VERY different to that of the ACTUAL location of the client.
Systems that infer stuff make errors, at
We're looking to acquire a couple small servers that can act as
routers for
us at remote locations.
You may want to check out soekris. (www.soekris.com)
This type of server is far more common nowadays
than it was when Soekris launched their business.
A Google search will lead you to
...but the fanless chips are
not always as fanless as you might like. I've seen a number of them
come
back well fried.
Fanless doesn't just mean no fans to break down.
It also means well-ventilated installation required.
Maybe you can find a datacenter with so many hot
bladeservers that
John Payne wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
utopia would be for DNS to be enhanced in some manner such that the
'end
user ip-address' became visible in the DNS request.
utopia would have NAT devices which actually updated that in-place
so an
authoritive
Am I the only one to get this email? Headers say merit.edu sent it. I
have NANOG whitelisted, though, so it came to my mailbox.
HEADERS:
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from mx1.exchange.riversidecg.com ([10.10.1.20]) by
be01.windows.riversidecg.com with Microsoft
As someone who has also deployed GSLB's with hardware applicances I would
also like to know real world problems and issues people are running into
today on modern GSLB implementations and not theoretical ones, as far
as I can tell our GSLB deployment was very straight forward and works
What would be a better solution then?
multiple A RR's for your web service, each leading to an independent web
server (which might be leased capacity rather than your own hardware),
each having excellent (high bandwidth, low latency, etc) connectivity to
a significant part of the internet. the
Joe Johnson wrote:
Am I the only one to get this email? Headers say merit.edu sent it. I
have NANOG whitelisted, though, so it came to my mailbox.
You do realize that by including the whole email, that anyone who had it
blocked, will not have seen your message either. I have multiple spam
Subject: NANOG Spam?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:56:19 -0500
From: Joe Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Am I the only one to get this email? Headers say merit.edu sent it.
I
have NANOG whitelisted, though, so it came to my mailbox.
[...snip spam...]
No, I got it as well
On 7/5/06, Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: NANOG Spam?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:56:19 -0500
From: Joe Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
snip
Just my .02, emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (HA! like i'll get a
response!) and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not expecting a
Gregory Hicks wrote:
Just a joe-job though. The headers are forged. See the IP address
in thi FIRST Received-by: header. Came from Spain.
[...snip later headers...]
Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (unknown [84.232.124.32])
by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id AD0CF91265
William Allen Simpson wrote:
The spammers have figured out how to bypass the NANOG members-only
posting, in this case by pretending to be John Fraizer and sending
directly to trapdoor.
On our public list servers we now require admin approval of all new
subscriptions as well as email
Allen Parker wrote:
Just my .02, emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (HA! like i'll get a
response!) and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not expecting a response from
this one either) have been sent. Anybody else feel like telling these
folks that they've got spammers on their networks?
I sent to [EMAIL
19 matches
Mail list logo
