[75103] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Thu Nov 4 11:16:19 2004
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:15:16 -0800 (PST)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: John Kristoff <jtk@northwestern.edu>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041104091727.66522227@dhcp124140072.nuwlan.northwestern.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--- John Kristoff <jtk@northwestern.edu> wrote:
> I'm cco-familiar with GLBP. It appears to have
> essentially the same
> timing knobs with the ability to actively load
> balance traffic. Is
> my assumption that some traffic will not
> experience any packet loss
> if it is not using the failed path correct? For
> anyone who has used
> this, was the added complexity of this protocol
> worth it?
I've used GLBP, and I was pleasantly surprised at how
well it worked. Certain types of failures were
hitless, and non-hitless failures were still pretty
fast. I'm not sure if it's fast enough for your
application, but I thought it was great.
=====
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
