IPV6 Anycast for streaming
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 17:09:56 UTC 2012
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Oliver
<olipro at 8.c.9.b.0.7.4.0.126.96.36.199.ip6.arpa> wrote:
> On Sunday 12 August 2012 04:11:25 Voice of the Blind ™ Network Operation
>> is a anycasted Prefix a good idea for Streaming?
>> here's what we're thinking about:
>> 1. get a /48 from a LIR or a RIR and anounce it through Hurricanne
>> through several Tunnel server including Singapor, New york and
>> 2. run 3 diferent Icecast server in each of the locations where
>> frankfurd would be the Master Server while the 2 others would be a
>> slave relay
>> 3. Assign same Ipv6 address to each of the icecast server where we
>> would be using other prefix to do Inter server communication
>> so if someone is in North America would go through new york, if is in
>> south east asia would be throug SG, otherwise africa/Europ would go
>> through Frankfurd
>> is that a good idea for streaming performance ?
>> any other suggestion is welcome
>> Thank you
> What you are talking about isn't really Anycast from the perspective of the
> rest of the world since what you're saying sounds like you'll just be single-
> homed behind HE.
anycast can take many forms, including anycast inside a single ASN
which to the outside world looks like a single announcement (or even
an announcement covered by an aggregate) - 188.8.131.52 falls into that
sort of deployment, I believe.
> Regardless of whether you peer with HE in multiple locations or just one, the
> AS path is still going to be the same and will enter into 6939 at whatever the
> BGP-closest point is - the Anycast aspect essentially exists only between you
> and HE.
well, if he's proposing a 'single server' (simplistic on my part) at
each of 3 locations which then has some routing gear (or quagga?)
linking it to HE ... that's 'anycast' (in the same way as many root
server operators do it)
> Providing HE are configuring a discriminator across their iBGP routers to take
> the shortest path at entry points you're not directly peered to, the whole
> thing should Just Work, sudden topology changes notwithstanding.
agreed. One would probably be interested in not the 'anycast' so much
as 'why are you doing 3 deployments'? and maybe: "is redundancy and
traffic direction something better done in DNS than BGP"? questions.
More information about the NANOG