Operation of Anycast Services
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, grow mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, grow chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Operation of Anycast Services' to BCP The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Operation of Anycast Services ' <draft-ietf-grow-anycast-05.txt> as a BCP This document is the product of the Global Routing Operations Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Kessens and Dan Romascanu. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-05.txt
Technical Summary This document describes the use of anycast for both local scope distribution of services using an Interior Gateway Protocol and global distribution using BGP. Many of the issues for monitoring and data synchronisation are common to both, but deployment issues differ substantially. The document considers the design of anycast services, including considerations of protocol suitability, routing considerations, addressing considerations and multi-service configurations, as well as service management issues. Working Group Summary The document was adopted as a GROW WG document in February 2005, and further revised in accordance with WG comments. The WG position was a general consensus, with some residual points of dissension within the working group from a single party. Protocol Quality David Kessens reviewed this document for the IESG. Note to RFC Editor Please insert at the beginning of Section 1: This document is addressed to network operators who are considering whether to deploy or operate a distributed service using anycast. It describes the best current practice for doing so, but does not recommend whether any particular service should or should not be deployed using anycast. Please insert at the end of Section 4.1: Operators should be aware that, especially for long running flows, there are potential failure modes using anycast that are more complex than a simple 'destination unreachable' failure using unicast.