A> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:54:04 -0700 A> From: Arman A> We are thinking of deploying anycast in our network for our A> DNS servers and mirrored/redundant customer connection. A> A> Any useful feedback would be appreciated. A> A> It would be a small footprint, 3 sites within the continental A> US. See archives. Several people have had good results. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.

arman@unitedlayer.com (Arman) writes:

We are thinking of deploying anycast in our network for our DNS servers and mirrored/redundant customer connection.

Any useful feedback would be appreciated.

It would be a small footprint, 3 sites within the continental US.

see http://www.isc.org/tn/, specifically ISC-TN-2003-1. (as a bonus, this TN was markuped using the recently mentioned tools from xml.resource.org.) f-root works this way. paly/sanfran, san jose, madrid, hong kong, and new york city are all bgp-anycasted. (with plans for several dozen more cities.) as long as you don't make silly assumptions about client locality based on "which anycasted server heard it", such that you give back incoherent answers in hopes that they will be somehow client-optimal, bgp-anycast isn't even controversial at this point in time. -- Paul Vixie