Hi Alex, Thanks for the response. So there is nothing i can do at this moment :(
Regards, Gokhan On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Alex <alex.arsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Gokhan Gumus, > AFAIK this is not possible at the moment since flows are not shared between > MSDPCs even inside same MX box let alone different physical boxes. > So if R1 goes down the: > 1/ TCP flows need to reestablish starting from 3-way handshake > 2/ UDP flows with ALG need to reestablish starting from scratch (every ALG > has different procedures) > 3/ non-ALG UDP flows _can_ continue as if nothing happened depending on > protocol, e.g. p2p UDP flows will resume from last xferred piece > 4/ ICMP flows continue as if nothing happened > If you need physical-box-redundant NAT I'd suggest to use SRX cluster. > HTH > Rgds > Alex > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gökhan Gümüs" <ggu...@gmail.com> > To: <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:15 PM > Subject: [j-nsp] NAT Redundancy on Juniper routers > > > Hi all, >> >> I am trying to achieve redundancy on Juniper routers while performing NAT. >> >> I have two Juniper MX960 router on the backbone with VRRP setup.I am >> configuring NAT on R1 successfull.Same NAT rules are existing on the other >> router but on R2,static route which is pointing sp interface is >> deactivated.Is there anyway to achieve automatic failover capability on >> NAT?In other words if something happened on R1, can R2 handle all NAT >> process without doing anything? >> >> Kind regards, >> Gokhan Gumus >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp