Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection

[David Barak]

--- John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   I'm cco-familiar with GLBP.  It appears to have
> essentially the same
>   timing knobs with the ability to actively load
> balance traffic.  Is
>   my assumption that some traffic will not
> experience any packet loss
>   if it is not using the failed path correct?  For
> anyone who has used
>   this, was the added complexity of this protocol
> worth it?

I've used GLBP, and I was pleasantly surprised at how
well it worked.  Certain types of failures were
hitless, and non-hitless failures were still pretty
fast.  I'm not sure if it's fast enough for your
application, but I thought it was great.



=
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 
 

Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

John,

I'm using GLBP round-robin in a specific scenario with
"ip routing" as the tracking mechanism, and only in this
one specific segment if the network (OSPF elsewhere), with
EIGRP as the routing protocol between R1, R2, R3, and R4:

-+---FE+-
 | |
R1R2
 | |
T3 T3
 | |
R3R4
 | |
 +FE---+-


GLBP works very well here for us based on EIGRP routing
metrics.

There's a very good GLBP config white paper on CCO.

No sure if this answers your question, or not

- ferg


-- John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  I'm cco-familiar with GLBP.  It appears to have essentially the same
  timing knobs with the ability to actively load balance traffic.  Is
  my assumption that some traffic will not experience any packet loss
  if it is not using the failed path correct?  For anyone who has used
  this, was the added complexity of this protocol worth it?

 
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]