> What about a network where there is many 1-2 sec lag between servers (an > example). If, let say, 3 or 4 servers decide to 'jump' at the same time... I > wont list all problem that could occur, but there is a need for a pre-jump > (to the network and some sort of aknolegment after that) command telling > other servers to wait a little before their jump and maybe reconsider after > the fist one (via the secondary link of course, and propaging to all servers > and secondary link and coming back the same way to say 'oki', but not being > stopped if there is no answer at all... (blah)).
Given that this fallback isn't intended for dynamic routing, just for making a split transparent, I'm not certain this really is a problem. I can however see a possible problem where a secondary link is established just before a break occurs during a lagged condition--the SQUIT and SECONDARY would end up crossing, and some servers would end up seeing the server go away anyway... > There is also the problem that secondary server would be fine for leaf > servers, but what about hubs? It's for the hub that it would be the more > usefull, but it is also where problems begins: We have to be carefull to > avoid some sort of long term netbreak if 1 hub decide to jump to an other > hub but creating 2 seperate groups that way... There must be a checking > mecanism ;p > > I don't know it this if this is 'clear' but if you play with a sheet of > paper, some dots and line, wou'll see what i mean :o) My intent is to fail over to the secondaries only if a primary link falls over, so I'm not sure if this problem is still there... -- Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
