IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 8.4.1 Anycast Map-Resolver Operation

"Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics" <ietf@bartschnet.de> Sun, 16 September 2018 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bartschnet.de>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2665A130E18 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 03:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=bartschnet.de
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 2m29SqliWs-S for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 03:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.core-networks.de (mail.core-networks.de [IPv6:2001:1bc0:d::4:9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDAE0130E10 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 03:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bartschnet.de; s=2018030201; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:To:Subject:From:content-disposition; bh=4zl+i3M+fLqBSRwrDvayZzU60Of/eovVNj9BKUWALyU=; b=jmLb+fU7NokGApG1BSJAu0RK15 KxnDC+GPeE9Kksjn852eKW8+M+ggbQRS5/OTBwJS9ROXjKJB5lbuK01O6+PMtPCFmxFNrM5tqlT7f lu7lXcWm1gbBnosDWY1Wk2bhToCqGyrMabTOf7Kul1XsRSOAnSV1yJgLaTaT/XWxQJTn7jx0OYsLi kZFVdZfZTODo5yDbpc/TQtOm3nDc4zM/zhFKHAjwWTnxfqsT6Vutg+LILbXyqznDRBRqUPVk/lhgg A7zdxxPSYn9OGCxiTNr++Li6Vaz0Ke0pe8T8xUPGNZfVQRfcS7PI5kiEfPlOJLFQBQFswrkBzfGHR aUTJCBQ0m+z/PLSirJjoinJOHls6xXi6IMgYCMFMeA/L0nxXmeaaNR4eA9OrXuZNiogw9oNTYJYn6 j4tAGzpfOpNu0/trCnRq6EIxxrvrFDY3iH+uvX94wJdPW/eHcc50SlHRM3ETW2CdFBwIG+OVBokZr rq0dWvBnTvmt8iGDSRIln+zuDouQXemhaSwIpNaxVEF852kKga82etKr+XhPMjBmS8IjGrjbpXEWJ JY/yCSnGOeVZxPgY8ku80cVBM2fkNr2WLp0ULISTj2XxZm/K4Geg+C6xYDKLUKJ7mn+kLpsm0zuxQ 2nVz/UdkRIYFegeZKQxA42a+ey+h5zRQMJCd73MxE=;
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.core-networks.de id 1g1U79-0000Dh-7z with ESMTPSA (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) for lisp@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:17:16 +0200
From: "Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics" <ietf@bartschnet.de>
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <d50da9ac-82f7-5aa2-5a34-5c6b3f9a2882@bartschnet.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:17:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/FEsXjhdjvOD4TaT9KIbthPSuTCE>
Subject: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 8.4.1 Anycast Map-Resolver Operation
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:17:19 -0000

Hi,

"draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14" section "8.4.1 Anycast Map-Resolver Operation" says

"Note that Map-Server associations with ETRs SHOULD NOT use anycast
addresses, as registrations need to be established between an ETR and
a specific set of Map-Servers, each identified by a specific
registration association."

In my opinion it is sensible to use anycast addresses for map servers of a distributed database for fail-over/load balancing cases and the "SHOULD NOT" is to limiting.

Instead I suggest to encourage operators to specifially consider possible pitfalls of anycast operation.


Regards,


Renne

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email