Low latency forwarding failure detection
David Barak
thegameiam at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 4 16:15:16 UTC 2004
--- John Kristoff <jtk at 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
More information about the NANOG
mailing list