On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
- For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
"hot-standby cluster"
- For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose to
keep "load-sharing cluster"
I think "failover" is in broader use than "hot standby"
and would tend to prefer it myself, but I think either is clear.
I'm okay with "failover cluster" as a description of the cluster
type. For the node itself, I think referring to it as the "hot
standby node" is probably a little clearer than the "failover node".
But I'm okay either way, I'll leave it to the actual document editor.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
