Yes, two VMs is the way. But "nothing is wrong" with a "HA" foobar feature of a Cluster. Sure it depends what the Cluster will actually do and how it will behave, and maybe /I/ would not trust VMware, but with ganeti we wanted to bring up certain VMs up on a different node as soon as possible. Also virtual Routers are not bad at all. Depends on their function. We had a couple of x86 boxes at the edge but internally (VPN VM; Tenent Gateways) were all running as a KVM VM. Which is also nice because if your Cluster supports "migrating" then you can even move around a VM in case you need to do hardware maintenance or just applying a kernel update.
Good luck, Bernd On 26.02.25 6:53 PM, Alarig Le Lay via Bird-users wrote: > I completely agree. I wouldn’t try to rely on something as shady as > virtualisation “HA” when something as simple as iBGP and VRRP is > available. I would even try to put my routers outside of any VM. > > On Wed 26 Feb 2025 19:23:27 GMT, Volodymyr Pidgornyi wrote: >> Hi. >> >> You would not install single bird instance on vmware HA cluster since >> you'll get sessions flaps when instance restart on falures. Right way is >> to run two different instances on different cluster nodes with HA >> deactivated for these instances and setup sessions from each bird instance. >> >> 26.02.2025 19:11, Mike Neo: >>> Hi, >>> I have one global operator and one IX via BGP and I'm wondering >>> whether to set up one bird VM based on vmware HA cluster or two bird >>> VMs without vmware HA cluster but located on separate nodes and >>> connected via iBGP. >>> >>> Of course, the iBGP connection allows for easy bird/VM updates but may >>> generate potential problems with iBGP and VRRP. However, if there is >>> one bird VM based on the vmware HA cluster, then in the event of a >>> node failure, it is necessary to wait until the machine is restarted >>> on the second node and until the prefixes from peers are loaded. >>> >>> What are your experiences with this?
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
