[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       firewalls-gc
Subject:    None
From:       cccre.ccull () capital ! ge ! com
Date:       1997-01-31 11:23:48
[Download RAW message or body]

Message-ID: <c6554d3684eeefcd@deliver.cichlid.com>
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" <firewalls@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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]