On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 13:23, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > I just spotted the following: the RR mechanism sends HoT to the anycast
> > address. How does that work? It might go to a completely different
> > server.
>
> There is an assumption that there won't be a routing change on
> the anycast address between the first TCP SYN and the HoT. Given
> the other problems a routing change would have, I feel it is a
> reasonable trade-off.
I'm just wondering if this holds true for load balancers. For
transaction type application one might want to send each connection to a
different server.
Susceptibility to DoS attacks is another consideration that needs some
attention, I think. The RR mechanim in MIPv6 is designed to require no
state in CN, but in the anycast RR mechanisms the roles are reversed:
here the anycast server is the one holding state.
In this, Pekka's ICMP idea seems better, since it does not require any
state in the anycast server.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
