This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Wed Oct 29 08:44:34 CET 2008
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:40:37AM +0400, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote a message of 23 lines which said: > isn't the whole idea of anycast that you create redundancy by adding > more machines/locations in the same address space ? Having one anycast cloud does provide redundancy and then protection against *some* problems, typically physical problems (power failures, fire) or dDOS. > So what exactly are you trying to gain by adding multiple anycast > blocks, that's not exactly clear with me. But anycast by itself does not protect you against problems with BGP/routing. If Pakistan Telecom announces one of your prefixes, or if a wrong/outdated bogon filter blocks it, anycast by itself won't help. Here, a second anycast cloud with a second prefix may help.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]