Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection

[David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>]

--- 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