I think for very small/small networks anycast requires a lot of overhead
and understanding. If your big enough to do anycast and/or loadbalancing
it's not hard for you to put all three addresses onto one device.
Anycast isn't really hard - same address, multiple places, routers see wha
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> Please remember that IPv6 DNS is OFTEN not stateless as the replies
> are commonly too large for UDP.
Anything that supports IPv6 _should_ also support EDNS0.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anyb
On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:45 AM, TJ wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation
and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using
:::1
FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
I th
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
>
>
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
>>>
>> FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
>>
>>
>>
> I think for very
TJ wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
I think for very small/small
> >> WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
> > You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
> > load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
> > I personally would suggest getting a well kno
6 matches
Mail list logo
