t-interval time will only
>>> hasten these problems. It's your call, but imo it's a
>>> high-risk/low-reward situation tuning the failover to the lowest time
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Network Engineer
>>>
>>>> 214-981-1
gt;>
>> Network Engineer
>>
>>> 214-981-1954 (office)
>>> 214-642-4075 (cell)
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>> http://www.speakeasy.net
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
;> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of alaerte vidali
>> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:04 PM
>> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] VRRP tuning and scaling
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I believe you will face scalab
fice)
>> 214-642-4075 (cell)
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.speakeasy.net
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of alaerte vidali
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:04 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Sub
y, January 13, 2008 4:04 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] VRRP tuning and scaling
Hi,
I believe you will face scalability issues, even though I can only
affirm
this 100% in Cisco.
I suggest you consider not only normal periods of the network. In this
case
probably it is
-
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:15:58 +0100
> From: Gard Undheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [j-nsp] VRRP tuning and scaling
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-88
Hi
I am currently tuning VRRP to speed up the failover time. I have set the
fast-interval to 100msec, which is a minimum. Does anyone know how these
settings scale with different numbers of vrrp groups? The customer
currently has 20 vrrp groups, but would it also work fine with as much
as 255 gro
7 matches
Mail list logo