nanog mailing list archives
Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection
From: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg () netzero net>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:33:11 GMT
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----+----- | | R1 R2 | | T3 T3 | | R3 R4 | | ----+----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 <jtk () northwestern edu> 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 fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net
Current thread:
- Low latency forwarding failure detection John Kristoff (Nov 04)
- Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection David Barak (Nov 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Nov 04)