nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: Paul Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:56:44 +0000
As with all things, the trick is to weigh the risk of disaster against the probability of benefit and do whatever makes sense within your own particular constraints.
is nobody using a host based solution to this? that is, are times when HA LB is needed for TCP (like video over http) also seen as times when a single UNIX host is too unreliable, even if it's fast enough, and an appliance is better? even last year's model of BSD or Linux 1U with a couple of broadcom GigE ports can run proxynetd at near wire speed. so performance isn't the issue unless we're talking 10GE, and there can't be many appliances operating at 10GE yet. or is the problem simply that there isn't a port or pkg or rpm of proxynet, and in spite of being 12 years old, nobody but me runs anything like it? (so, this boils down to, are folks only using proxies on outbound, still, in 2007?) ((and did you think squid was your only inbound proxying option?))
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Joel Jaeggli (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Paul Vixie (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Paul Vixie (Jun 04)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Colm MacCarthaigh (Jun 04)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Paul Vixie (Jun 04)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Colm MacCarthaigh (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Joe Abley (Jun 04)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Paul Vixie (Jun 04)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Matt Peterson (Jun 05)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (Jun 03)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Bernhard Schmidt (Jun 04)