> -----Original Message----- > From: Benny Amorsen [mailto:benny+use...@amorsen.dk] > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 1:30 PM > > If you have the switches do the duplication, you save having to buy a > dedicated duplication appliance ("load balancer") which itself can be a
correct me if I'm wrong - but I always thought a loadbalancer does *not* duplicate traffic... ... at least none of those I have managed to deploy > single point of failure. This use was not foreseen in RFC 1812, which is and a switch is not? ;-) (yes, you can have two - but then you can have two LB's in a cluster...) > hardly surprising; many other features which we take for granted today > were not foreseen back then. The only problem is that no one bothered to I still believe that resolving application resiliency in the data path is just a big fail. Session establishment mechanisms should take care of, natively. Unfortunately, not all (and none of those widespread, such as http) do. > get RFC 1812 updated -- an obvious job for e.g. Stonesoft or Check > Point. well maybe, but then don't let users blame Cisco for not supporting those since the vendors did not define a standard for such a behaviour. > /Benny -- deejay _______________________________________________ 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/
