From firewalls-gc Fri Jan 31 11:23:48 1997 From: cccre.ccull () capital ! ge ! com Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:23:48 +0000 To: firewalls-gc Subject: None X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=firewalls-gc&m=87619433410994 Message-ID: Lines: 34 Xdeliver: processed on Fri Jan 31 11:23:43 PST 1997 Xdeliver: SENDER firewalls-owner@greatcircle.com Xdeliver: to Xdeliver: cc Xdeliver: apparent_to Xdeliver: from cccre.ccull@capital.ge.com X400-Originator: CCCRE.CCULL@capital.ge.com X400-Recipients: firewalls@greatcircle.com X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=GECAPITAL/ADMD=MARK400/C=US/;0013800002432107000002] X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22) Message-ID: <0013800002432107000002*@MHS> To: "firewalls(a)greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: Highly available Internet connection Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:38:49 -0500 Sender: firewalls-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>Are they one on the same box or is it two different router that >>automatically drop to a redundancy ? Thanks. >>-- Joel i didn't get your e-mail address joel, so i'm having to repond here... they are 2 physically seperate boxes (referring to cisco's hot standby protocol). i'm not sure if they do anything like load balancing, or if the split between the 2 is more static. however, i do know that when one fails, the other one picks up it's load. i'm working from 4 month old memory here, so this stuff is a little foggy.... but it seems like the 2 routers are seen (ip-wise) as 1 virtual router. i guess each router knows the other's routing table, but just ignores that portion as long as the other router is functional. if they DIDN'T know each others table, and 1 of the routers failed, there'd be a lag while it updated, and i remember no perceptible lag when we tested these.... chris cull cccre.ccull@capital.ge.com