Bruno Bonfils wrote:
Well,
do you think create a new protocol from scratch to share an IP beetween N
servers can be subject of problem with Cisco's Patents ? As you see I'm far to
be familiar with legal problems, I can understand implements VRRP can be
dangerous, but I'm not sure to understand why it's not possible to create a new
protocol to do *more or less* (I guess the less is prefered) the same thing.
I'm really interest to have a cheap and simple solution to share a virtual IP,
for both forwarding and services. Be sure I'm open to any discussion (private
or public)
Bruno,
Assuming you are looking for HA solution for servers, do you require it
to work for apps where there is state involved in a way such that the
failover is *transparent* to user? CARP and VRRP work well for
stateless sessionless protocols like DNS. For services that require
constant connection to the server, CARP and VRRP alone will not provide
failover in way that is transparent to the user. Also both CARP and VRRP
will provide HA solution *only* for hosts that are on the same subnet as
the forwarder/server. Is that adequate?
It would be good to get a precise requirement from your end, so that we
can understand:
- why Clustering is not a acceptable alternative.
- what are the exact requirements that a non-clustering HA alternative
solution for server/forwarder must meet to suit your needs.
Thanks
Sangeeta
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
