[29684] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: bad idea?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karyn Ulriksen)
Wed Jul 5 14:28:03 2000
Message-ID: <0127E258EE29D3118A0F00609765B44831785B@subnet-gw-00053.sitestream.net>
From: Karyn Ulriksen <kulriksen@publichost.com>
To: 'tony bourke' <tony@vegan.net>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:24:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Has foundry figured out how to introduce persistence in their LB's yet? I
like their switches and have been waiting for them to get persistence going
on. I think I'll jump on that LB list you cited below. Wasn't aware that
one was around now. Great idea! Thanx! -Karyn
-----Original Message-----
From: tony bourke [mailto:tony@vegan.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:11 AM
To: Jeremiah Kristal
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: bad idea?
actually, Foundry has a global solution based on BGP, check them out.
There is a load-balancing mailing list, which addresses such issues.
http://vegan.net/lb is the info to sign up.
Tony
On
Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jeremiah Kristal wrote:
>
> Given a small, globally routable netblock to be used for front-end web
> servers, and a strong aversion for using DNS for any type of load
> balancing, would it be reasonable to build two identical servers farms
> with the same public IP addresses and rely on the BGP sessions with the
> hosing providers to remove one advertisement in the event of a problem?
> I've been looking at ways to ensure that the webservers are always
> available, short of building a network connecting hosting facilities.
>
> Jeremiah
> being a customer stinks
>
-------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -
Tony Bourke tony@vegan.net
