[110246] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover solution using BGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chandler Bassett)
Tue Dec 30 19:15:55 2008
From: Chandler Bassett <chandler.bassett@gmail.com>
To: Naveen Nathan <naveen@calpop.com>
In-Reply-To: <20081231000832.GB6841@armakuni.lastninja.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:15:21 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If the infrastructure is the same in both locations, why not load
balance with stateful failover?
If it's not the same in both locations, what are they doing for
replication and the such in the event a site does go down?
- Chandler
On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Naveen Nathan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would appreciate insight and experience for the following situation.
>
> I have a client that would like to announce a /18 & /19 over BGP in
> Sacramento and LA, us being the second location in LA. Our location
> will be a failover location incase Sacramento goes down.
>
> They want failover for extreme cases when they're completly down in
> Sacramento. They have strict requirements so that traffic to their
> blocks
> should exclusively go to Sacramento or LA.
>
> This seems difficult to automate and they are aware of this. They will
> contact their provider to stop announcing the blocks and subsequently
> contact us to announce their routes.
>
> I am wondering is there a better way to approaching the situation
> without resorting to announcing the routes when the client calls us
> and tells us to failover. This seems to be the inherent problem aswell
> because the customer wants this to be a manual process.
>
> --
> Naveen Nathan
>
> To understand the human mind, understand self-deception. - Anon
>
