Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(January 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Highly available Internet connection
From: CCCRE . CCULL @ capital . ge . com
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:38:49 -0500
To: "firewalls(a)greatcircle.com" <firewalls @ greatcircle . com>
X400-content-type: P2-1988 (22)
X400-mts-identifier: [/PRMD=GECAPITAL/ADMD=MARK400/C=US/;0013800002432107000002]
X400-originator: CCCRE . CCULL @ capital . ge . com
X400-recipients: firewalls @ greatcircle . com

     >>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

Indexed By Date Previous: Sidewinder vs. Cyberguard
From: "K.M." <goertzek @ wangfed . com>
Next: Odd probes at port 7777
From: Ken Hardy <ken @ mailhost . bridge . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Highly available Internet connection
From: fyeung @ fyeung8 . netific . com (Francis Yeung)
Next: Re: Highly available Internet connection
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick @ cisco . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com