2010/3/7 Eugene Yunak <e.yu...@gmail.com>: > On 7 March 2010 11:22, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote: >>> >> When your new master is promoted, it will set up a new session with >>> >> your peers. This is probably not the sort of failover you want to see >>> >> happening in production. >>> >> >>> > >>> > That's why you have multiple bgpd routers with redundant pathes. >>> >>> from the network point of view, packets will come from the same MAC an >>> IP address (because of CARP), so ... if BACKUP will "just continue to >>> maintain a session, established by MASTER", nobody will even know, 1 >>> sec is nothing in terms of BGP >>> >> >> You can not "just continue to maintain a session, established by MASTER". >> That implies that you can migrate a running TCP session plus all the >> necessary state information of the session engine from one system to >> another. >> >> -- >> :wq Claudio > > Time for the "bgpdsync" (as in pfsync)? Sounds like a nice idea to me.
yes, pfsync is great. > On the other hand, i fail to see a problem with having two separate > routers connect to your bgp peer(s), without carp on the outgoing > interface. why would one want carp them? does your peer only allow for > one session at a time from your side? we have 3 providers, so we have to negotiate /29 network and 2-speakers for our side. /30 and 1-speaker is much simple from that point of view. > > -- > The best the little guy can do is what > the little guy does right
