<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 27 Feb 2015, at 09:53, Sebastian Damm <<a href="mailto:damm@sipgate.de">damm@sipgate.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Actually, it's the latter. Our current high availability setup reilies on anycast. And with TCP, this would mean a huge change in our setup.<br></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote></div>That is in fact an interesting topic. Can you please elaborate a bit more on this as I would like to see what we can<div>do in the software to make things easier.</div><div><br></div><div>I had a similar discussion a while ago and it seems like failover handling is easier in UDP and we will need to fix this in order to be able to migrate more users to TLS.</div><div><br></div><div>I haven't tested how different clients behave in regards of TCP if the server close a connection.</div><div><br></div><div>/O</div></body></html>