IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Anycast has been killed by LINUX patch in 2016 - who cares?

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 09 August 2021 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1E13A2D56; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 00:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OscMVIjPLy65; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 00:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E5763A2D51; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 00:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:100:a431:15c4:3bd4:f283]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D09A64E11A45; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 07:23:58 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IPv6 Anycast has been killed by LINUX patch in 2016 - who cares?
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 09:23:54 +0200
Message-Id: <E0A8ECA9-0459-4705-9345-77E781F0DBC1@employees.org>
References: <AF1E50C9-DEE4-4F07-A624-EAC1AE92385B@frobbit.se>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF1E50C9-DEE4-4F07-A624-EAC1AE92385B@frobbit.se>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18G82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3e_yvXQ57QN6Jx0ohVDOuqJJGMU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 07:24:03 -0000

Patrick,

> We use Anycast in the form of multiple termination points for the flows announced in BGP from the same AS but multiple locations, is in use, and it just works.

How do you know?
It would be interesting if you have measurements of application behavior when routing changes.
If applications generally handle that well then it would affect how we reason about flash renumbering (and state redundancy for NATs) too.

Cheers 
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email