On 03/09/2012 12:11 AM, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > Bill, > > wo...@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) wrote: > >>> 2. We plan to use this anycasting based setup for DNS during initial few >>> months. Assuming low traffic for DNS say ~10Mbps on average (on 100Mbps >>> port) and transit from just single network (datacenter itself) - is this >>> setup OK for simple software based BGP like Quagga or Bird? >> Yes, and in fact, that's how nearly all large production anycast networks >> are built??? Each anycast instance contains its own BGP speaker, which >> announces its service prefix to adjacent BGP-speaking routers, whether those >> be your own, or your transit-provider's. Doing exactly as you describe is, >> in fact, best-practice. > Well, let's say, using Quagga/BIRD might not really be best practice for > everybody... (e.g., *we* are using Cisco equipment for this) Actually there is a *very* good reason why many (most?) anycast instances use quagga/BIRD/gated/etc to speak bgp (or even ospf for internal anycast) which using a Cisco (or any separate router) usually won't accomplish.
-- Pete > > Using anycasting for DNS is, to my knowledge, best practice nowadays. > >
