nanog mailing list archives
Re: Server Redundancy
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com>
Date: 06 Aug 2003 22:59:43 +0000
Using outboard appliances for "server load balancing" is unnecessary, and it adds more powered boxes (thus decreasing theoretical reliability). If your upstream router can speak OSPF and is made by either Cisco or Juniper then it will implement ECMP (equal cost multipath). If you put your "service address" on lo0 as an alias, and you run Zebra or GateD on the "service hosts" which possess that alias address, then each such host will appear to be a router toward the service address as a "stub host" and your upstream routers will dtrt wrt flow hashing for udp or tcp traffic (that is, the udp/tcp port number will figure into the hash function, so you won't multipath your tcp sessions.) This is how f-root has worked for years. Look ma, no appliances. -- Paul Vixie
Current thread:
- RE: Server Redundancy, (continued)
- RE: Server Redundancy Austad, Jay (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy Gerald (Aug 06)
- Re: Server Redundancy Jack Bates (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy variable (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Nathan J. Mehl (Aug 07)
- RE: Server Redundancy Gerald (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy Austad, Jay (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy Gerald (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy Simon Hamilton-Wilkes (Aug 06)
- Re: Server Redundancy Steve Francis (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy Austad, Jay (Aug 06)
- Re: Server Redundancy Paul Vixie (Aug 06)
- Re: Server Redundancy Jason Robertson (Aug 06)
- Re: Server Redundancy Paul Vixie (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Bill Woodcock (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Simon Lockhart (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Bill Woodcock (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Rob Pickering (Aug 07)
- RE: Server Redundancy John Ferriby (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Joe Abley (Aug 07)
- Re: Server Redundancy Paul Vixie (Aug 06)
- RE: Server Redundancy Austad, Jay (Aug 06)