Hi, This turns out to be not the case Renne. The idea of map-server resiliency is attractive. But any-cast works best for non-stateful cases, and the relationship between an ETR and a MS is by definition, stateful.
-Darrel > On Sep 16, 2018, at 3:17 AM, Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > "draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14" section "8.4.1 Anycast Map-Resolver > Operation" says > > "Note that Map-Server associations with ETRs SHOULD NOT use anycast > addresses, as registrations need to be established between an ETR and > a specific set of Map-Servers, each identified by a specific > registration association." > > In my opinion it is sensible to use anycast addresses for map servers of a > distributed database for fail-over/load balancing cases and the "SHOULD NOT" > is to limiting. > > Instead I suggest to encourage operators to specifially consider possible > pitfalls of anycast operation. > > > Regards, > > > Renne > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
