Hi,
we are using NLB for several servers, too. I hate NLB, but there was no
other solution available.
What we did:
We used multicast NLB with static arp entries. For each server we
defined a small subnet (/28 or /29, respectively), containing router
addresses, physical interface IPs and the service IP (each service ip is
requiring a static arp entry on the router). For each subnet we defined
a VLAN and as new switch ports as possible.
With this implementation we reduced flooding, since only some few
switches and a very small broadcast domain where involved.
Kind regards
Reinhard
Am 02.05.2011 11:02, schrieb Hugo Veiga:
Hi,
We have microsoft NLB to.
I must say this was a little bit tricky. First we used unicast NLB and
this flooded all ports on the same vlan. But then we configured
igmpsnooping and set the servers to use multicast with IGMP. The flood
stopped and the servers work fine as before. I advise you to try the same.
Best regards,
Hugo Veiga
Em 5/2/2011 6:05 AM, Sheil,Sean M escreveu:
We had an issue with the Microsoft NLB that was causing an arp flood.
We had other issues that I cannot fully explain at this point. Our
network has been very stable for many years. In essence, this NLB
problem had been going on for quite some time, however with additional
devices hitting OWA and our web server the problem finally hit a
breaking point. The budget constraints are tied to purchasing the
additional licenses for routing.
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: William Olive [mailto:william.ol...@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:17 AM
To: Enterasys Customer Mailing List
Subject: RE:[enterasys] Configuration question
Sean
What was the issue that caused you to re-think your routing strategy?
And what budget constraint implies that you must use static routes as
opposed to a dynamic routing policy?
Billo
Data Communications Co-Ordinator
Information Technology& Telecommunications
Hunter New England Health Service
ph 0249 213804 fax 0249 213038
william.ol...@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
________________________________________
From: Sheil,Sean M [s...@nwmissouri.edu]
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2011 2:58 PM
To: Enterasys Customer Mailing List
Subject: [enterasys] Configuration question
Hi all,
We have a 99% Enterasys network. At our core we are replacing
our dfe blades with an S4. Three years ago, I move all of the routing
from the edge devices (E1's) to the core. Everything had run fine until
an issue occurred recently. Now the thought process has been to move
the routing back out to the edge devices using static routes. I am
looking for external advise on the pros and cons of making this change.
We have 40+ subnets/vlans. The remote buildings will have a G3 at the
entrance with 2 - 3 E1's stacked behind. At some point in time, we have
had up to 13K devices connect to our network.
Thanks,
Sean
---
Sean M. Sheil, GSEC-Gold
Sr. Systems Administrator
Northwest Missouri State University
660.541.3021
---
To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to lists...@unc.edu with the
body: unsubscribe enterasys william.ol...@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
---
To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to lists...@unc.edu with the
body: unsubscribe enterasys s...@nwmissouri.edu
---
To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to lists...@unc.edu with the body:
unsubscribe enterasys hve...@ubi.pt
.
________________________________
UBI amiga do ambiente: Antes de imprimir este e-mail pense bem se tem mesmo que
o fazer. As árvores são um bem imprescindível.
---
To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to lists...@unc.edu with the body:
unsubscribe enterasys reinhard.streb...@kit.edu
---
To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to lists...@unc.edu with the body:
unsubscribe enterasys arch...@mail-archive.com
