On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:52:07 +0100, you wrote: > >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_configuration_example09186a0080a07203.shtml > > Yeah, that's the one I was thinking off. > >> Together with the static ARP it tends to make the whole system (cluster >> + network) more fragile IMO. Too much manual configuration, too many >> normally independent parts of the solution that have to match. > > I agree, it isn't pretty. > > One could use the 'unicast' model instead, but that lives on unicast > flooding, so it requires very small and very controlled VLANs, and it > breaks with vSwitches in there. > > Or one could use a hardware loadbalancer...
We've suffered through several MS-NLB clusters for the last couple of years. Nothing but trouble. Static arp plus disable dhcp-snooping is required. We've broken it several times, with vrf migrations and what not. I would strongly suggest staying away from MS-NLB. -- Tim:> _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
