Anycast and how it can work for you
Hey Guys, Just wondering how many providers other than citylink adapt anycast into their network. I decided to write something here to explain to others what it is and how I've implemented it. To start, I run www.fast.co.nz which provides _free_ downloads of open source ISOs and websites. Since certain ISPs decided to depeer the ISP that was hosting my server couldn't fit the bill for this free content, even though it was saving the providers international bandwidth, thus I incorporated anycast. I have a server in Wellington connected to WIX and another on APE. Both servers advertise the IP range 202.7.6.32/29, ovcourse the Auckland server to APE and the Wellington server to WIX, Citylink then advertise the same range at a datacenter in the USA. If a users provider is connected to one of the above exchanges, they are connected to the Server closest to them, if they don't peer at either exchange they are sent to the USA server Where in my case they are forwarded to http://peer.fast.co.nz . In a commercial environment such as Trademe this could be implemented to save money. Trademe Could run it's servers in Wellington the same way they are now, and server the content to anyone That peers at the WIX, they can then advertise the same ip range in the USA and mirror the servers or maybe just an image server for the .jpg, .gif, .png images etc. How does this save money having servers in the USA, well to rent colo space and a p4 2.8gig Server in the USA costs me as little as $80 p/m for 1tb, that's right 1024Gigs worth of data And the connection is very stable. For commercial companies such as Trademe they may require a Little more bandwidth than a TB and support 24/7 etc, so they may pay tops $400 p/m, this would Be a LOT cheaper than buying additional circuits from providers in NZ. How this would effect providers that have depeered? Well lets take stuff for example, we know They push close to 25Mb/s at times, lets add Trademe and say they push 50Mb/s , well this would Mean that the providers that don't peer will be spending a couple hundred thousand $ to provide The content to their users, it would be cheaper for them to just peer. The above is just an explanation of anycast and how it could be used to serve your websites or A way to better manage your network. Any views written to the NZNog are always the view of my own And not those of my peers or employers. Regards Barry
Hey Guys,
Just wondering how many providers other than citylink adapt anycast into their network. I decided to write something here to explain to others what it is and how I've implemented it.
Anycast can be used for things like: DNS (Root Servers which are ready in Use in NZ) Multicast RP Points (For public RP points in different areas on an ISP) SNTP (it can be for NTP, but changing anycast servers could stuff it up) 6to4 gateways (192.88.99.0/24)/2002:c058:6301:: Normally anycast addresses are to be used in a stateless way (you cannot guarentee the 2 UDP or TCP sessions to come from the same anycast machine (as if routing to an anycast machine address stops it goes to an alternative machine) . Simple things like the above are only used in an anycast way.. BUT its used in a quazzi way at APE/WIX/overseas in a different way to deliver content from different machines like web traffic which may or may not be stateless (usually statefull). Maybe better is GSLB for content like High Content Providers or Content Thanks
On 15 Mar 2005, at 02:36, Lennon - Orcon wrote:
Just wondering how many providers other than citylink adapt anycast into their network. I decided to write something here to explain to others what it is and how I've implemented it.
Anycast can be used for things like:
DNS (Root Servers which are ready in Use in NZ) Multicast RP Points (For public RP points in different areas on an ISP) SNTP (it can be for NTP, but changing anycast servers could stuff it up) 6to4 gateways (192.88.99.0/24)/2002:c058:6301::
Normally anycast addresses are to be used in a stateless way (you cannot guarentee the 2 UDP or TCP sessions to come from the same anycast machine (as if routing to an anycast machine address stops it goes to an alternative machine) . Simple things like the above are only used in an anycast way..
No, lots of TCP-based services are distributed using anycast. The decision as to whether anycast is an appropriate mechanism is more complicated than "is the transaction stateless". For a more thorough description, see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-00.txt (comments welcome). Joe
participants (3)
-
Barry Murphy
-
Joe Abley
-
Lennon - Orcon