nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internet vulnerabilities
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () zocalo net>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > I think the problem they are refering to is what happens if your routing > topology changes (or worse, flaps). A stateful connection (like TCP) which > would have stayed up during a routing change could potentially be shifted > to a different server which obviously wouldn't know the other one's state. Yes. As I said in a previous message in this thread, that's a common objection brought up by people who've never run an anycast network and are trying to think of reasons why it might be problematic. But since in the real world that appears to happen two orders of magnitude less frequently than connection failures due to loss of connectivity, _when you take no steps to prevent it_, and the prevention is both trivial and necessary with HTTP, which is the protocol most commonly anycasted, it's not an issue at all. -Bill
Current thread:
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities, (continued)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Marshall Eubanks (Jul 05)
- anycast (Re: Internet vulnerabilities) E.B. Dreger (Jul 05)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Rodney Joffe (Jul 05)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Stephen Griffin (Jul 07)
- WorldComm Fiber Cut???? Gerardo A. Gregory (Jul 07)
- Re: WorldComm Fiber Cut???? Sean Donelan (Jul 07)
- Re: WorldComm Fiber Cut???? neil d. quiogue (Jul 07)
- Re: WorldComm Fiber Cut???? Pawlukiewicz Jane (Jul 08)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 07)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Bill Woodcock (Jul 07)
- RE: Internet vulnerabilities Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- RE: Internet vulnerabilities Sean Donelan (Jul 05)
- Re: Internet vulnerabilities Marshall Eubanks (Jul 05)
- RE: Internet vulnerabilities Bill Woodcock (Jul 05)
- RE: Internet vulnerabilities Daniel Golding (Jul 08)
- RE: Internet vulnerabilities jnull (Jul 05)