I'm sure there is research out there, but I can't find it, so does
anyone know of any research showing how good/bad using DNS anycast is as
a kludgey traffic optimiser?
(i.e. having multiple datacenters, all anycasting the authoritative name
server for a domain, but each datacenters' DNS server
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
I'm sure there is research out there...
Why? :-)
...how good/bad using DNS anycast is as a kludgey traffic optimiser?
I'd hardly call it a kludge. It's been standard best-practice for over a
decade.
THe question is, what is that
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
I'm sure there is research out there...
Why? :-)
Usual - if I build it myself, will it work well enough, or should I pony
up for a CDN?
...how good/bad using DNS anycast is as a kludgey traffic optimiser?
I'd hardly
(Caution: Chris is a chemical engineer, not an anycast engineer)
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
Bill Woodcock wrote:
...how good/bad using DNS anycast is as a kludgey traffic optimiser?
I'd hardly call it a kludge. It's been standard best-practice for over a
decade.
If
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
I'm sure there is research out there, but I can't find it, so does
anyone know of any research showing how good/bad using DNS anycast is as
a kludgey traffic optimiser?
(i.e. having multiple datacenters, all anycasting the authoritative name
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
If I read your original request correctly you were planning on:
1) having presence in multiple datacenters (assume multiple providers as
well)
2) having a 'authoritative' DNS server in each facility (or 2/3/4
whatever per center)
3) return datacenter-1-host-1 from
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
If I read your original request correctly you were planning on:
1) having presence in multiple datacenters (assume multiple providers as
well)
2) having a 'authoritative' DNS server in each facility (or 2/3/4
whatever
This isn't really 'anycast' so much as 'different A records depending on
server which was asked'
right.
Well, there'd be one NS record returned for the zone in question. That
NS record would be an IP address that is anycasted from all the
datacenters. So end users (or their DNS
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:00:53PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
If I read your original request correctly you were planning on:
1) having presence in multiple datacenters (assume multiple providers as
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, James wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:00:53PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Hmm, why not anycast the service/application ips? Having inconsistent DNS
info seems like a
On 2 Sep 2004, at 06:05, Bill Woodcock wrote:
If you want nearest server, anycast will give you that
essentially 100% of the time.
Just to clarify this slightly, since I've known people to misinterpret
this point: a clear, contextual understanding of the word nearest is
important in
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Steve Francis wrote:
I'm sure there is research out there, but I can't find it, so does
anyone know of any research showing how good/bad using DNS anycast is as
a kludgey traffic optimiser?
http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2002/Distance/
this
Paul Vixie wrote:
not only is it bad dns, it's bad web service. the fact that a current
routing table gives a client's query to a particular anycasted DNS server
does not mean that the web services mirror co-located with that DNS server
is the one that would give you the best performance. for
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
not only is it bad dns, it's bad web service. the fact that a current
routing table gives a client's query to a particular anycasted DNS server
does not mean that the web services mirror co-located with that DNS server
is the one
On Sep 1, 2004, at 2:17 PM, Steve Francis wrote:
...how good/bad using DNS anycast is as a kludgey traffic
optimiser?
I'd hardly call it a kludge. It's been standard best-practice for
over a
decade.
I thought it was standard best practice for availability, like for
root name servers. I
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
I'm sure there is research out there...
Why? :-)
Usual - if I build it myself, will it work well enough, or should I pony
up for a CDN?
Uh, what about that makes you sure that there's research out there?
I thought it was
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, James wrote:
Hmm, why not anycast the service/application ips? Having
inconsistent DNS info seems like a problem waiting to bite your
behind.
Which begs the question.. is anyone doing this right now?
Yes, lots of people. Akamai is the largest
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
I'm sure there is research out there...
Why? :-)
Usual - if I build it myself, will it work well enough, or should I pony
up for a CDN?
Uh, what about that makes you sure that there's research out there?
Oops,
So there is no need to anycast the DNS servers and rely on BGP topology for
selection.
Instead use bind's behaviour so that each resolving nameserver will be
querying the authoritative nameserver that responds the fastest.
However, note that only BIND does this. djbdns always selects
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
I thought it was standard best practice for availability, like for
root name servers. I thought it was not a good closest server
selection mechanism, as you'll be going to the closest server as
determined by BGP - which may have little relationship to
20 matches
Mail list logo
