[118758] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Redundant Data Center Architectures
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Galbraith)
Wed Oct 28 13:49:56 2009
In-Reply-To: <EA7CBF6A-BE36-4864-9A81-94606A49DED4@arbor.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:44:07 -0500
From: Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>>Layer-3-independence and active/active/etc. is where it's at in terms of
high availability in the 21st Century. GSLB, et. al.
Somewhere on video.google.com is a Google I/O talk explaining the hell that
is active/active redundancy and how hard it is to achieve at layers 4-7. I
don't argue that it's the proper method for Layer 3 though.
-brandon
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
>
> I'm wondering what are the growing trends in connecting Data Centers for
>> redundancy in DR/COOP environments.
>>
>
> 'DR' is an obsolete 40-year-old mainframe concept; it never works, as
> funding/testing/scaling of the 'backup' systems is never adequate and/or
> allowed.
>
> Layer-2 between sites is evil, as well.
>
> Layer-3-independence and active/active/etc. is where it's at in terms of
> high availability in the 21st Century. GSLB, et. al.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
> Sorry, sometimes I mistake your existential crises for technical
> insights.
>
> -- xkcd #625
>
>
>
--
Brandon Galbraith
Mobile: 630.400.6992
FNAL: 630.840.2141
