On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Brian Dickson wrote: > Dean Anderson wrote: > > The load balancer is really just a special kind of stateful NAT. > > > No. > > Load balancers can load balance, without any translation being done at all. > > And a load balancer is by definition doing *anycast*. The same address > is used as a destination, and the packets are delivered to multiple > hosts. That is anycast.
No, that isn't anycast. A loadbalancer is actually a stateful NAT with several different hosts behind the load balancing NAT. Those loadbalancer devices you buy from cisco and other companies are specialized NAT boxes. The servers behind the load balancer have all have different ip addresses. The loadbalancer makes it appear they servers share the same address through stateful address translation techniques. By contrast, anycast is a load distributing technique that doesn't involve any load balancing hardware. There is no box, there is not state maintenance. One just gives several computers the same IP address and drops them on the network. Obviously, TCP doesn't work, but stateless services can work. > Anycast can be either, or both of, global load balancer (using network > announcements for accomplishing anycast), or local load balancer > (using L2/L4 to serve multiple servers from a single apparent host > address.) You quite obviously don't understand the difference between anycast and ordinary load balancing devices. > BTW, your "history" as such, ends with you being banned from *this* list. > How appropriate. I wasn't banned from this list. I was told to shut up about the subject, and banned from a different list---the list where you complain about misconduct on this list. What part of "hardball" don't you get? Sam Hartman has noted they have been using "hardball" tactics. I guess I thought you were more aware of this than you are. Let me see if I can boil it down to a paragraph: Kessens, then IESG member, said that root server operation was not a topic of DNSOP. [See item 1 of the DNSOP charter.] Kessens threatened to silence me if I pointed out Anycast flaws. So, I complained to IETF about the improper Kessens threat. Kessens/Crocker/Carpenter filed PR action, citing my complaint as a 'continuing a discussion declared off-topic' PR-action consensus favored no-PR-Action Carpenter misled the IAB on the consensus Carpenter, then IETF chair, was responsible for a false report to the IAB that there was a consensus approving the PR-action. In fact, the consensus was against the PR-action: 15 out of 17 people who responded indicated they were against the PR-action. http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/IESG-PR-discussion.html The IAB was apparently told that there was less than 10 messages on the IETF list. Though, even that is still not a consensus! [See section 5.4 of http://www.iab.org/appeals/2006-07-13-anderson-response.html] It also turns out the PR-action is contrary to the law governing corporations (the IETF is an activity of the ISOC, a US corporation): under the law, without a bylaw on suspension or expulsion, a corporation cannot suspend or expel a member without a vote of the membership. The ISOC has no such bylaw, and no vote of the membership was held. There are some other conditions that also weren't met. Carpenter, while still IETF chair, was informed of this, but he apparently has no respect for the law. http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Suspension_and_Expulsion_Requirements.pdf (it wouldn't matter if the IETF weren't part of the ISOC. Essentialy the same rules apply to unincorporated associations and clubs) BTW, the ISOC isn't just a regular corporation, its a special kind of non-profit corporation, that is supposed to benefit the public interest. So its managers aren't allowed to have conflicts of interests. Its kinda-sorta like a government agency, but different. There were loads of other problems, not the least of which was the fact that none of the messages that Carpenter/Kessens/Crocker complained about were in the least way abusive. As you might guess, money was the motive behind the false charges, and silencing criticism was a way to continue to make money with the IETF. Then GROW considers an Anycast Draft, by your company. Appeals are filed with the IESG and IAB. I had our lawyer review these appeals. As my lawyer commented, 'No one could read this and not get the impression that something really smells' Hartman cites "Hardball tactics" https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-grow-anycast/comment/57703/? The Nanog issue was briefly noted. I was silenced there, too, for disputing BGP anycast stability, more hardball. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
