North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Low latency forwarding failure detection

  • From: David Barak
  • Date: Thu Nov 04 11:18:45 2004
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=EmLmoJtre7oVSnZS/fu+cGwzGkMxrv5Y6XwWdDBfQ05ifAllLjFF3vVDV5R9juqC/olbOGRrJpTdIvUvWPicfdJD/flT3U9eUsy/EL1Sx0aUdkxYOZUQlS4K1zQPc4S4C/t2QlLDUUUzqWqDWjeIrAgoYH/N6iS/lUMgIR2EpsQ= ;
--- John Kristoff <[email protected]> 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