nanog mailing list archives
Re: Failover solution using BGP
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 02:48:32 +0800
On Dec 31, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
DNS tweaks won't help with that (and to be honest, BGP doesn't address it, either).
After all, there ought to be an internal line of communication as well as the external one, and the availability probes can be set up with logic such that if one side has bidirectional comms and the other doesn't, the desired behavior (whatever that may be, dependent upon which side has full comms) can be enforced.
Couple that with a stateless front-end - which could also afford active/active in that tier, even if the back-end is monolithic - and it's more nearly a complete solution, with more options, granularity, and safeguards available, than one based upon routing alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () cisco com> // +852.9133.2844 mobile All behavior is economic in motivation and/or consequence.
Current thread:
- Re: Failover solution using BGP, (continued)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Doug Schaapveld (Dec 31)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Chandler Bassett (Dec 30)
- RE: Failover solution using BGP Braun, Mike (Dec 30)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Malte von dem Hagen (Dec 30)
- RE: Failover solution using BGP Braun, Mike (Dec 30)
- RE: Failover solution using BGP Austin Wilson (Dec 30)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP William Herrin (Dec 30)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Naveen Nathan (Dec 30)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Florian Weimer (Dec 31)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Roland Dobbins (Dec 31)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Florian Weimer (Dec 31)
- Re: Failover solution using BGP Roland Dobbins (Dec 31)
- RE: Failover solution using BGP Bryant Valencia (Dec 31)