Thank to everyone that took the time to respond with their ideas.
To those who asked, the client didn't provide details on the application.
However they were insistent that it wasn't possible to have it run in an
active/active configuration, so load balancing at either the application
or BGP level
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Naveen Nathan wrote:
> I have a client that would like to announce a /18 & /19 over BGP in
> Sacramento and LA, us being the second location in LA. Our location
> will be a failover location incase Sacramento goes down.
>
> They want failover for extreme cases when
Hi,
Am 31.12.2008 01:19 Uhr, Braun, Mike schrieb:
> Why not just AS prepend your secondary site if the services to the
> Internet are the same at both sites and tied to the same IP addresses?
because that simply does not work (reliably). It would depend on
AS-paths of the same length from every p
If you don't have control over the other site my best advice would be to use
the BGP communities your transit providers give you. If you setup your clients
routes to a lower Local Perf on your transit provider's network, your transit
provider will always pick the primary provider's routes first.
>For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while
>turning up v6 in a dual-stack environment.
Also when doing MT on cisco, configure "no-adjacency-check" under the v6
address-family during the migrate
else you will bounce your sessions.
Cisco of course warn you against doing this but
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 03:14:13 am Roque Gagliano
wrote:
> at least in my case, I did turned ISISv6 in one WAN
> interface where the router on the other side (a Cisco)
> did not have the "ipv6 unicast routing" general command
> on and the isis adjacency went down completely. So, yes
> that
Why not just AS prepend your secondary site if the services to the
Internet are the same at both sites and tied to the same IP addresses?
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Chandler Bassett [mailto:chandler.bass...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:15 PM
To: Naveen Nathan
Cc: nano
If the infrastructure is the same in both locations, why not load
balance with stateful failover?
If it's not the same in both locations, what are they doing for
replication and the such in the event a site does go down?
- Chandler
On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Naveen Nathan wrote:
Hi,
Conditional advertisements might be what you're looking for:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094309.shtml
Regards,
Chris Ely
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Naveen Nathan wrote:
Hi,
I would appreciate insight and experience for the following situation.
Hi,
I would appreciate insight and experience for the following situation.
I have a client that would like to announce a /18 & /19 over BGP in
Sacramento and LA, us being the second location in LA. Our location
will be a failover location incase Sacramento goes down.
They want failover for extre
done.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Simon Allard
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone from Youtube/Google please contact me off list, I have a strange
> routing issue at the youtube->cogent border. Usual contact methods have
> failed me.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
> Simon
>
>
>
--
Nathan Hickson
KI6
Hi,
Can someone from Youtube/Google please contact me off list, I have a strange
routing issue at the youtube->cogent border. Usual contact methods have failed
me.
Thanks
Regards
Simon
ARIN received the IPv4 address blocks 108.0.0.0/8 and 184.0.0.0/8 from
the IANA on Dec. 22, 2008. We will begin making allocations of /20 and
shorter prefixes from these blocks in the near future in accordance with
ARIN's minimum allocation policy.
Network operators may wish to adjust any fil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Saturday 27 December 2008 09:27:05 pm Randy Bush wrote:
as one who has been burned when topologies are not
congruent, i gotta ask. if i do not anticipate v4 and v6
having different topologie
Matthew Black wrote:
I've had difficulties reaching anyone with a brain
at my DSL provider Verizon California.
I can reliably ping the first hop from my home to
the CO with a 25ms delay. But if I ping any other
location, packets get dropped or significantly
delayed. To me, this sounds like Veriz
15 matches
Mail list logo
