nanog mailing list archives
Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection
From: David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:15:16 -0800 (PST)
--- 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?
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
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)