HSRP/VRRP can be tweaked to less than 1s fail over time. Can you provide
a copy of your network map for analysis? GLBP might be a viable option
as fail over is not actually an issue at that point.
On 12/19/09 2:48 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
> VRRP/HSRP does not cause latency the problem we faced pri
VRRP/HSRP does not cause latency the problem we faced prior was when links
flapped or timed out this would be too much of a hindrance for our users to
reconcile application state with various trading venues we are trading
thousands upon thousands of trades a minute to various destinations.
As stat
Maybe I am missing something, but how does VRRP/HSRP cause latency?
On 12/19/09 3:45 AM, Scott Berkman wrote:
> Anycast?
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog29/abstracts.php?pt=NjcxJm5hbm9nMjk=&nm=n
> anog29
>
> Might need to know a little more about the layout here for a better answer.
>
>
Paolo Lucente wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
>> ..
>>> modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability
>>> information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good id
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:42:33PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am truely in awe how deeply the implications and alternatives have
> been analysed. this is particularly impressive given the complete
> absense of any facts about the alleged proposal.
Part of the thread just went more of general di
On Dec 19, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> this is particularly impressive given the complete absense of any facts
> about the alleged proposal.
I think the whole brouhaha is the merely result of someone saying 'BGP-speaking
routers' vs. saying 'peering/transit edge routers', combined w
i am truely in awe how deeply the implications and alternatives have
been analysed. this is particularly impressive given the complete
absense of any facts about the alleged proposal.
randy
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
> ..
> > modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability
> > information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
>
> Indeed not.. but
On 02.12.2009 19:12, Todd Mueller wrote:
Anyone have any experience using Edge-Core switches (or Accton,
Edge-Core is a subsidiary)? Good/bad? Pricing/features seem good, but
you often get what you pay for . . .
we have a couple of Foundry Networks EdgeIron 4802CF, which should be
similar to a
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> Existing hardware does this today with NetFlow, et. al.
.. not only that, we've been doing this for a bloody long time in
internet years. About all that really matter is figuring out how
to engineer your network to allow for netflow based billing wit
Anycast?
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog29/abstracts.php?pt=NjcxJm5hbm9nMjk=&nm=n
anog29
Might need to know a little more about the layout here for a better answer.
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: rodrick brown [mailto:rodrick.br...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009
Hi
after a first post with 0 answer (very thanks ..) i test a second post for
get a small help.
I am search a simple sample of configuration for a cisco 2821 for connect
a Ipsec routers ton a MPLS IP VPN Backbone
My cisco 2821 have two interface, one connected at my MPLS network
and the second a
12 matches
Mail list logo
