[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Greco) writes:
...
So, anyways, would it be entertaining to discuss the relative merits of
various DNS implementations that attempt to provide geographic answers
to requests, versus doing it at a higher level? (I can hear everyone
groaning now, and some purist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Greco) writes:
...
So, anyways, would it be entertaining to discuss the relative merits of
various DNS implementations that attempt to provide geographic answers
to requests, versus doing it at a higher level? (I can hear everyone
groaning now, and some purist
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
[...]
If you're doing things on the Internet, instead of the physical world,
topological distance is presumably of much greater interest than whatever
geographic proximity may coincidentally
At 12:14 AM 16-01-08 +1300, jamie baddeley wrote:
Yes, but that would require them to run a DNS server at each of their 4
locations. They do not want to run their own DNS. They want it outsourced.
Thanks,
-Hank
Thought about anycasting? Broad as a barn door, but if you add health
I am looking for a commercial DNS service that provides
geo-directionality. Suppose I have 4 data centers scattered thruout the
world and want users to hit the closest data center based on proximity
checks (pings, TTLs, latency, load, etc.). I know one can roll their
own, using various
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
The Ultradns (now Neustar) Directional DNS service is based on
statically defined IP responses at each of their 14 sites so there
is no proximity checking done.
Yes, and that's how anycast works: it directs traffic to the
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
The Ultradns (now Neustar) Directional DNS service is based on
statically defined IP responses at each of their 14 sites so there
is no proximity checking done.
Yes, and that's how anycast
Except Hank is asking for true topological distance (latency /
throughput / packetloss).
Anycast gives you BGP distance, not topological distance.
Say I'm in Ashburn and peer directly with someone in Korea where he
has a node (1 AS hop), but I get to his node in Ashburn through my
On 15-Jan-2008, at 12:50, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Anycast gives you BGP distance, not topological distance.
Yeah, it's topology modulated by economics :-)
Joe
On Jan 15, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Except Hank is asking for true topological distance (latency /
throughput / packetloss).
Anycast gives you BGP distance, not topological distance.
Say I'm in Ashburn and peer directly with someone in Korea where he
has a node (1 AS hop), but I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick W.Gilmore)]
And even if you do define topology to be equivalent to BGP, that is not
what is of the greatest interest. Goodput (latency, packet loss,
throughput) is far more important. IMHO.
in my less humble justified true belief, this is 100% truth.
This in no
Unless you define topologically nearest as what BGP picks, that is
incorrect. And even if you do define topology to be equivalent to
BGP, that is not what is of the greatest interest.
Goodput (latency, packet loss, throughput) is far more important.
IMHO.
Certainly, but given
12 matches
Mail list logo
