Anycast and windows servers

Fri Feb 20 17:59:25 UTC 2004

Given your initial question was, I think, about the OSPF implementation 
on windows - I used it on NT 4.0, when it was part of the routing and 
remote access option, to implement fault tolerant routing through some 
windows based firewalls.
It worked fine then. So long as you minimize the services running on the 
windows box, it was stable enough.
Have not used window servers since NT 4.0, but I don't imagine its 
gotten worse.

Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:

>Depending on the service being provided, Microsoft
>has their own clustering solution which will
>perform failover.  Sometimes choosing full vendor
>supported technologies is the easiest path.
>With Windows 2003 Server they even support
>geographically disperses failover.  Info at:
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/technologies/clustering/default.asp
>
>Gary
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Daniel Senie [mailto:dts at senie.com]
>>Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 6:39 AM
>>To: Sean Donelan
>>Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>>Subject: Re: Anycast and windows servers
>>
>>
>>
>>At 05:43 AM 2/20/2004, you wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Honestly, I do not know about OSPF (or BGP) on Windows, 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>however, you
>>    
>>
>>>>can just static route to the Windows box(es).  Sure, if 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the OS hangs,
>>    
>>
>>>>the interface will stay up and the static route will 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>still push bits at
>>    
>>
>>>>the dead box, but it will work (FSVO "work").
>>>>
>>>>Besides, how often does Windows crash? <snicker>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Hence the reason why I want the route to cease being 
>>>      
>>>
>>advertised if the box
>>    
>>
>>>"fails."
>>>      
>>>
>>Connect the server(s) to APC MasterSwitch or equivalent 
>>hardware. Monitor 
>>the server box(es) for responsiveness. If/when it fails, the 
>>monitoring 
>>station can instruct the MasterSwitch to reboot (power cycle, 
>>really) the 
>>box. Stuff is pretty inexpensive (certainly less so than load 
>>balancers).
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I'm trying to avoid putting yet another server load balancer 
>>>      
>>>
>>box in front
>>    
>>
>>>of the windows box to withdraw the route so a different 
>>>      
>>>
>>"working" box will
>>    
>>
>>>be closest.  It may be an oxymoron, but I'm trying to make 
>>>      
>>>
>>the windows
>>    
>>
>>>service (if not a particular windows box) as "reliable" as possible
>>>without introducing more boxes than necessary.
>>>      
>>>
>>My initial thought last night was in fact the use of load 
>>balancers. But 
>>then you need to think about redundant load balancers and so on. 
>>
>>    
>>