On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, bill fumerola wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:33:09PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> not all load balancers work the same.
I agree. However, there aren't any load balancer devices that are
implemented with Anycast. A make and model number, if you know of one.
> direct server return aka one-arm load balancing does no translation or
> rewrite of any headers (l3 or l4). all it does is make a switching
> decision based on health check and other weighting criteria.
Header rewriting? as in http header rewriting? That isn't anycast
either.
> i'll leave the annals of IETF archives as sufficient documentation about
> how wrong you are about anycast.
Hey, we agree! I'm good with that. They never have to play hardball
with the whistleblowers who were in fact, wrong.
> as for load balancers, just because some of them perform NAT in some
> configurations does not mean that load balancer = NAT.
I agree with that, too. Especially if you broaden the notion to http
load balancing schemes. However, I've never heard of any load balancer
device that uses Anycast, as Brian Hickson asserted.
But none of this is relevant to the claims that Hickson made.
And Hickson's dispute isn't relevant to anything about reflector
attacks. You apparently digress.
--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
