Jan 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: rvr4vpc
To: Karl Harris
Cc: Christopher Litsinger
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Karl Harris
wrote:
> I found a reference here which seems to imply only Source Nat Routers can
be
> made redundant in
> guest networks.
I see, AFAIK you misinterprete
nd other functions which do not conflict with the Source Nat
> function may be enabled as needed.
>
> Do I have it correct?
>
> Karl
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Daan Hoogland
> Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: rvr4vpc
&g
H,
We had a little meeting on the state of this feature and the way to go. I have
no karma for ASFBot meetings so here is my excerpt from the transcript:
Attendance:
K3KH Karl Harris
Yasker Sheng Yang
Spark404 Hugo Trippaers
echaz Eric Chazas
LeoSimons Leo Simons
dahn Daan Hoogland
others where
One note:
In fact the split of MASTER is not a big issue, because that would only
happen if network runs bad enough, which already cause packet loss.
The problem is it should recover from that situation fast enough.
Previously due to ARP ping from BACKUP router(which thought it would
replace MAST
Outlined below is an overview of the analysis and in process work for
adding Virtual Redundant Routing to CloudStack Virtual Private Clouds.
Current state:
Public networks allow for redundant VR (Virtual Routers).
The network topology is static. The network topology consists of a single
guest
ne
H Karl,
We will have a look at this with the team at Schuberg Philis, thanks.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Karl Harris wrote:
> Outlined below is an overview of the analysis and in process work for
> adding Virtual Redundant Routing to CloudStack Virtual Private Clouds.
>
>
> Current state:
