It's a design choice, the only reason is it would be a very complex situation to deal with. In fact the redundant router itself's policy has already been very complex...
We didn't look into details at the time of implementing redundant router, but there are lots of concerns e.g. a network glitch may result in 3 routers running in the network and potentially two of them are in MASTER state. Of course discussion is welcome. We just want to keep it as simple as possible at the time. --Sheng On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Daan Hoogland <dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com > wrote: > LS, > > Schuberg Philis guarantees 100% functional uptime for their customers. > Infrastructure is of course part of this promise and the easier factor to > provide strong levels of resiliency. For this reason we want to make use of > redundant virtual routers together with HA functionality. > > We see HA and redundant routers as to different methods to provide higher > levels of uptime. > > > 1. The redundant router setup takes care of seamless failover without > lengthy hick-ups in the case of a single router failure. > > 2. HA takes care of restarting a failed VM or router. Restoring > connectivity in the case of single router or restoring 2n resiliency in the > case of a redundant router setup. > > The combination of these two methods will help us to meet our 100% > promise; .We need to restore 2N redundancy ASAP in the case of single > component failure e.g. a router. With these two methods combined the system > is more autonomous and doesn't need human intervention to restore > redundancy. > > In the current situation we need to send a page to an on call engineer to > restore redundancy asap, because of the tight SLA's. While if we could use > HA icw redundant routers. The on-call guy can enjoy his sleep and will be a > more happy guy :) > The present code forces the HA offering to off on redundant routers which > seems odd. > > So my question is: Why is it forced to off; Is there a technical restraint > or is this a design choice we can discuss and maybe revise? > > Cheers, > >
