> Anycast isn't perfect either though. Sure, but it's better than DNS based solution. > It may be more likely to get you a route with fewer hops, but that's

> Anycast isn't perfect either though. Sure, but it's better than DNS based solution. > It may be more likely to get you a route with fewer hops, but that's not necessarily the lowest latency link. And if there's a congested link in the path, it's much harder to steer a portion of users, but not all to alternate servers. This is also true for DNS based solution because of DNS caching. Smart networks will change routes before your DNS changes get propagated. > Anyway, unless you have thousands of datacenters well distributed throughout the globe, a lot of people are going to have high latency to whatever server is chosen, and high latency and very small windows == poor throughput, regardless of how you get to a server. Depends what's your definition of high latency. If you live on desert in Africa or some forgotten village in India, then you will always have high latency because no one will build a POP there.