My only problem with the software solutions is that they are
much less feasible in the extremely high traffic (~1Gbps) arena.
Just my 2 cents...
Chris Hastings, CCSA, CCSE
Brainbench MVP for Internet Security
http://www.brainbench.com
"LIOLIS,SPIROS
\(HP-Greece,ex1\)" To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Smith, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m> Subject: RE: Load Balancing/HA
switches
Sent by:
firewalls-owner@List
s.GNAC.NET
05/24/2001 12:54 AM
Guys,
I still believe that software solutions for HA is better (and less
expensive) than hardware solutions (Radware, Cisco, etc).
Try Stonebeat and Veritas Full Cluster software.
Regards,
SPiros Liolis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 12:11 AM
> To: Smith, Steve
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Load Balancing/HA switches
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
> I know that the Sidewinder has that type of failover
> option as well.
> Basically there is a virtual shared IP address. The
> secondary Sidewinder
> keeps monitoring the primary with a heartbeat packet. When
> the primary
> goes down the secondary performs a gratuitous arp for the virtual IP
> address. The Cyberguard has something similar as well. I'm
> pretty sure
> this is a common commercial firewall feature. The disadvantage is you
> just have failover and not load balancing.
>
> Regards,
> Jeffery Gieser
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
