On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 12:29 +1300, Nathan Ward wrote:
Seems to me some people don't think through the logical consequences of their actions. It also seems to me that anyone needing failover in less than about an hour wants a different solution than updating DNS entries (load balancer, anycast, etc).
These solutions are about failover between sites where anycast is (a) not possible because of lack of BGP,
I wonder how many sites that serve "big content" and are concerned about loadsharing are not BGP connected. Not many I suspect.
or (b) a concern for connection oriented protocols (TCP).
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is only a concern under a failure mode of an anycast node? So combined with probability of risk and ease of resolution (browser reload), is this really a big concern? jamie