On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, April 27, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> >> > There is a third solution to the "anycast problem", which is what is done >> today in all systems that use anycast: assume that it happens so rarely, >> that a >> rare reset is just fine. >> >> ... >> Many (most?) of these properties run HTTPS. From what I hear, fastly >> customers are happy chappies -- TCP anycast works... > > OK. Let's put this anycast/UDP/TCP thread to rest, and agree that this is not > a problem in practice. And if that's true, then we should just pick > UDP/TLS/TCP and be done with it.
Having it work for content and DNS are two different things. The routing tables only need to be constant for a few minutes to support TCP content download. For DNS to be viable they have to be stable much longer. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
