3 ms·

The point the OP wanted to make was: Servers sitting less than 1km to each other tend to have lesser latency between them, compared to servers that could be an

• atonse 4y ago
  Ah because I am interpreting it more at the logical level and about them venturing out into unknown territories (the packets are traversing routers I do not control), rather than just latency. Since others have mentioned that latencies are very low if you locate in the same region. But if you have a zero-trust architecture and everything communicates over wireguard, then technically public or private won't matter right? Not saying public/private IPs don't matter – since almost all the servers would still only have private IPs. In a sense this is more like VPC peering.
  • krab 4y ago
    With IPv6, you can have all public IPs (the same as early days of IPv4). However, if you have apps that are tightly coupled and often with strict latency requirements such as Web <-> DB, then it's better to communicate only over private links. You can control latency and you have better reaction time when something breaks down. That is in addition to security concerns. I remember a failure of one transatlantic line that was used for one direction of packets we were sending between EU and US. I spent a night on a phone trying to convince AWS and our other datacenter operator to work around the problem by changing their routing and to push the backbone operator to fix the problem - we didn't have any relationship with the backbone of course. You don't want such disruption to happen in a core part of your app. These disruptions can also be intermittent and "random" and you have no way to fix.