LS, Schuberg Philis guarantees 100% functional uptime for their customers. Infrastructure is of course part of this promise and the easier factor to provide strong levels of resiliency. For this reason we want to make use of redundant virtual routers together with HA functionality.
We see HA and redundant routers as to different methods to provide higher levels of uptime. 1. The redundant router setup takes care of seamless failover without lengthy hick-ups in the case of a single router failure. 2. HA takes care of restarting a failed VM or router. Restoring connectivity in the case of single router or restoring 2n resiliency in the case of a redundant router setup. The combination of these two methods will help us to meet our 100% promise; .We need to restore 2N redundancy ASAP in the case of single component failure e.g. a router. With these two methods combined the system is more autonomous and doesn't need human intervention to restore redundancy. In the current situation we need to send a page to an on call engineer to restore redundancy asap, because of the tight SLA's. While if we could use HA icw redundant routers. The on-call guy can enjoy his sleep and will be a more happy guy :) The present code forces the HA offering to off on redundant routers which seems odd. So my question is: Why is it forced to off; Is there a technical restraint or is this a design choice we can discuss and maybe revise? Cheers,
