On Jul 22, 15:13, "Michael A. Patton" <MAP@bbn.com> wrote:
(*) And a clearly "unclean" way, which will work with existing clients, is to take a routing prefix and distribute _that_ around. The servers would all have the same address (making them hard to manage), and the routing prefix would be advertised from each of these locales, and routing would find you the "closest" one. After all, you
Yep, works. Management isn't a problem if each box is fitted with two interfaces and addresses, one for public consumption of contents, one for internal use. Not that we have done any of this for real (yet).
really are looking at a routing problem here. (Although something about hammers and looking like nails comes to mind. :-)
Well, yes, but then something like WWW and other stuff could be fitted with a number of unflattering descriptions. It's interesting to see ... it's only recently people on the US side have begun getting concerned about bandwidth issues, attempting to localize traffic if possible. So far, there wasn't anything that couldn't be solved with a couple of those DS3s, which cost the same on your side as one or two E1s on our side. (Part of the reason for the high cost of leased lines over here is that Europe is a large collection of twisty little places, all different. Hence, your leased lines go international and/or intercontinental at the drop of a hat.) So for a long time, localization and good geographic spread of servers of various kinds has been given very serious attention on this side. Now here's me waiting for some moron to invent Son of CU-SeeMe ... -- ------ ___ --- Per G. Bilse, Mgr Network Operations Ctr ----- / / / __ ___ _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V. ---- /--- / / / / /__/ / ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL --- /___ /__/ / / /__ / ------ tel: +31 20 5305333, fax: +31 20 6224657 --- ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865 --- Connecting Europe since 1982 --- http://www.EU.net e-mail: bilse@EU.net