On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:31 PM, 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. > > Melinda > I did not want to use "fault tolerant" because some would take that term is broad and sometimes taken to mean things I would not like to specify, like RAID arrays, and dual power supplies. I don't think we should use this item to mandate that the two cluster members should not be connected to the same power strip.
Anyway, "failover cluster" is OK, except that we've already used "failover" to describe an event that happens to both types of clusters. So I think we can stay with "hot standby" and "load sharing" Yoav _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
