Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:54 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> > I think you've offered some really bad advice here Bill.
>
> As I said, there are lots of people who _think_ it doesn’t work.  And then
> there are people who’ve actually done it, and know better.

Uh huh. The numbers are clear: 99.99% of the time it works. The other
0.01% of the time you're screwed and had better pray the user is one
of the ones you can afford to lose.

Unicast TCP breaks too, but it has the virtue of being fixable 100% of the time.



> Besides, you seem to not have read what I actually posted.  In which
> the advice I gave was _not_ to do anycast TCP, so as to avoid having
> to deal with people who _think_ they know something

Just because I rolled my eyes so hard my vision blurred doesn't mean I
failed to read your comment.


> Perhaps better advice would have been to go ahead and do it,
> solving his problem, but to just not post to NANOG about it,
> so he doesn’t have to listen to people who think they know
> better telling him that what he’s doing isn’t possible.

If you read what Joe wrote, he doesn't currently have an AS number or
employ BGP with his Internet providers. Extrapolate for his IPv4
assignment situation and the /24 announcement barrier. In an
IPv4-depleted world, he won't be doing anycast any time soon, even if
it was a sound plan.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>