> > I'm not going to opinion on the quantity of benefits, but this thought > could lend a razor from Occam. >
I always enjoy a good shave from ol' Occam,no worries. On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:54 AM Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 22:19, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > >> Side note, am I missing something obvious where I can’t just have > hardware routers strip ICMP, pipe it separately, put 500 VMs behind 4 vLBs > and let the world ping the brains out of it? > > > > Seems like a lot of overhead for zero benefit. > > I'm not going to opinion on the quantity of benefits, but this thought > could lend a razor from Occam. NPU based boxes, like JNPR Trio, NOK > FP, Huawei Solar, CSCO Lightspeed et.al. could easily respond to ICMP > echo and TTL exceeded in NPU for microseconds of delay and nanoseconds > of jitter at higher performance and lower cost compared to transing > it, i.e. ping responder would become negative cost. Only reason they > don't is because customers are not asking for it. > > Further, we could have a global anycast address, like we already have > for 6to4 relays, where a well-known ping responder exists. And anyone > who welcomes responding to pings, configures this address to all the > device loopbacks which they want to include, advertise those loopbacks > in IGP or iBGP and advertise the /24 aggregate in eBGP. > > -- > ++ytti >
