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/>