HSRP/VRRP can be tweaked to less than 1s fail over time. Can you provide a copy of your network map for analysis? GLBP might be a viable option as fail over is not actually an issue at that point.
On 12/19/09 2:48 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote: > VRRP/HSRP does not cause latency the problem we faced prior was when > links flapped or timed out this would be too much of a hindrance for > our users to reconcile application state with various trading venues > we are trading thousands upon thousands of trades a minute to various > destinations. > > As stated before Path A and Path B are two distinct paths they do > however provide identical services but application state is not > preserved. A new session and state must be established if a user > decides to switch between paths. > > Essentially we provide the ability for users either shutdown and start > sending orders to Path A or Path B based on latency from our servers > to these trading venues we're actively monitoring latency between both > end points. > > The overall design is being driven by our rigorous application needs > more than anything. > > The implementation is straight forward we receive a duplicate set of > feeds from site A and site B and can also access various services > coming from site A or site B however, at any given time a user will be > sending/recieving data from one of those destinations. Never both > simultaneously. So my question what is the best way to provide this > type of redundancy at the host level? > > The application will only use one target address. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Steven King <sk...@kingrst.com > <mailto:sk...@kingrst.com>> wrote: > > Maybe I am missing something, but how does VRRP/HSRP cause latency? > > On 12/19/09 3:45 AM, Scott Berkman wrote: > > Anycast? > > > > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog29/abstracts.php?pt=NjcxJm5hbm9nMjk=&nm=n > > <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog29/abstracts.php?pt=NjcxJm5hbm9nMjk=&nm=n> > > anog29 > > > > Might need to know a little more about the layout here for a > better answer. > > > > -Scott > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rodrick brown [mailto:rodrick.br...@gmail.com > <mailto:rodrick.br...@gmail.com>] > > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 7:47 PM > > To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> list > > Subject: Routing to multiple uplinks > > > > This may be slightly off topic however I have a very unique > situation > > where I need to provide two diverse paths to a major stock exchange. > > Each host may either use route A or B for any given reason to access > > this particular exchange using two distinct routers and target > address. > > > > The applicatiOn running on these hosts must only see/use one target > > address this needs to be transparent as possible. NIC > bonding/teaming > > on the host side isn't a viable solution because of the latency > > overhead same goes for vrrp/hsrp. > > > > I believe my only option here is to setup multiple default > routes with > > a preferred path of some sort. This seems to be possible using ip > > route2 on Linux. > > > > This just seems wrong on many levels and I thought I would post here > > because I know there is something obvious I'm missing. > > Please clue me in. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Sent from my iPhone 3GS. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Steve King > > Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. > Cisco Certified Network Associate > CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional > CompTIA A+ Certified Professional > > > > > > -- > [ Rodrick R. Brown ] > http://www.rodrickbrown.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/rodrickbrown -- Steve King Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
