Anycast but for egress

Mark Tinka mark at
Wed Jul 28 15:41:57 UTC 2021

On 7/28/21 17:09, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> I was about to say something about us having equal success over 105 or so countries, when I came to the realization that inviting quantitative comparisons of manhood with Mark is the very definition of folly.  :-)

Well, we are nowhere close to the 105 countries PCH boasts. That's a 
whole other level of scale :-).


> Anyway, yeah, the folks who were scared of anycast in the 1990s were running from shadows, not basing it on experience or data.  In the real world, the number of stateful flows affected by route changes is dwarfed by those disrupted by other causes, and is immeasurably small.  And when they do crop up on the radar, it’s almost always someone’s equal-cost-multi-path gone wrong, rather than an actual shift.  So, not an issue at all in the real world, just in the imaginations of folks who thought TCP was a complex thing reserved for the specific use-cases that they’d already conceived of in the 1980s.  Took a while to get beyond their protestations, but here we are in the 21st century.  Planck's principle holds.  Science progresses one funeral at a time.



More information about the NANOG mailing list