Re: RE: Firewall-1 platforms

["shawn . moyer" <shawn () net-connect net>]

"Kalat, Andrew (ISS Atlanta)" wrote:

>         Indeed, VRRP is pretty cool. As fail over goes, I agree, it's pretty
> easy and elegant. I might have misspoke though. I was referring to not just
> fail over, but actual true load balancing, where both boxes are passing
> traffic, rather than having one in hot standby waiting for a failure. Do you
> know of a way to do that with Nokia? That would indeed rock...

Yeah, actually. VRRP does share load, it's part of the spec, in fact.
Been awhile since I've done it, but I believe you configure a weight for
each IP in relation to the shared Virtual IP (VIP) and traffic is shared
across via that weight metric. 

At the employer where we did this we had four Nokia boxes sharing load
for 150Mbps of traffic (each box basically was assigned 25% of the
load), and it was part of our standard configuration do two Nokia's load
sharing 50% each. 

http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/vrrp.htm

http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/rfc/rfc2338.txt



--shawn


-- 
s h a w n   m o y e r
shawn () net-connect net

Man will occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.

                                        -- Churchill
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () nfr com
http://www.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards