lvs-users
|
To: | Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Route through rather than connect to possible? |
Cc: | lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
From: | Kyle Sparger <ksparger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:14:39 -0400 (EDT) |
> If there are 2 directors (one running and one on standbye), how will BGP > know that the running one has failed and switch over to the other? It's built into the protocol that each peer will periodically send a query, and if the remote peer doesn't respond within a certain period of time, it will be considered to be dead, and the known route to the IP address through that peer will be withdrawn. Basically, it assumes that if there is no response, something is either wrong with the peer, or network connectivity to the peer is gone. In either case, we do not want to route through that peer if that circumstance occurs. Thanks, Kyle Sparger |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Route through rather than connect to possible?, Joseph Mack |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Route through rather than connect to possible?, Kyle Sparger |
Previous by Thread: | Re: Route through rather than connect to possible?, Joseph Mack |
Next by Thread: | Re: Route through rather than connect to possible?, Kyle Sparger |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |