Hi, * Lincoln Dale <l...@cisco.com> [2010-08-10 19:56:21+1000]: > > On 10/08/2010, at 6:35 PM, Alexander Clouter wrote: > > > I was toying with the idea internally of putting a tiny OSPF router into > > our VM cluster to drag IP's from one side of our organisation to the > > other. > > reality is that many hosts and applications require and expect layer 2 > connectivity for things other than IP unicast when they think they are > in the same IP subnet another host. > Thought it was obvious I was talking L3 here, maybe not. If you are coupling hosts at L2 then you would be nuts to not move them as a group surely? I probably was not clear when talking about the 'dead zone' VLAN at either site, there just would be no router on that VLAN. An amendment is that you have a dedicated locally scoped same-VLAN-ID VLAN for just those nodes that need L2 lovin' to work on, have another pair of VLAN's for the L3. > > The only remaining question is why for it's money have VMWare not done > > the trivial task of making OSPF part of their VMotion malarkey...*sigh* > > because its not /quite/ as simple as you suggest. > The awkward part I see is host based (not service) L3 connectivity. The operating system would need work happily in a multihomed configuration and to understand what a dead gateway means. This probably would not be easy to pull off on a Windows based guest, but it should be quite doable on....well *any* other OS :)
As a mentioned before though, unfortunately I never got this beyond the planning stage due to the 'quality' of the VMware consultants we hired :-/ Cheers -- Alexander Clouter .sigmonster says: Minnie Mouse is a slow maze learner. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
