On 5 May 2008, at 21:49, Nathan Ward wrote: > On 6/05/2008, at 1:21 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > >> On 5 May 2008, at 20:50, Nathan Ward wrote: >> >>> Perhaps what would make more sense here is Foundry (F5, etc.) >>> building >>> an anycast feature - anycast prefixes are withdrawn when a cluster >>> relying on that anycast prefix goes below a threshold. >> >> I'm not sure exactly what feature is required, here. f5s of my >> acquaintance are already very capable of making OSPF LSAs based on >> virtual servers' pools being non-empty. Do it on more than one f5 in >> the same area, and you're anycasting service availability with the >> current feature set. > > Can they do it with BGP for Internet anycast?
They run ZebOS for routing stuff, so I would say so, although I haven't tried. In our application the covering supernets are synthesised as aggregates based on the presence of the OSPF /32. >> The general reason why people prefer to find alternative solutions >> rather than use dedicated load-balancers are that the dedicated load- >> balancers are hellishly more expensive than the $5 gigabit switch >> you probably already have in your garage. > > The dedicated load balancers also talk BGP (well, ones I've played > with), so that does away with the need for a BGP speaking router. There is a certain keenness to keep the peering edge free of multi- function boxes in some sandboxes I have played in. I can't say I would be tremendously enthusiastic about the idea of using an (say) f5 BigIP 6800 as a peering router (not that I've tried and failed, or anything; for all I know it would work just fine). But perhaps some of that religion has just rubbed off on me. Joe _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
