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
|
|
