Re: [FW1] State Sync in 4.1 Beta

[Neil Ratzlaff <neil.ratzlaff@ucop.edu>]

We do not have Nokia, but when we looked into moving to that platform 
earlier this year, we were explicitly told by a well-known vendor that VRRP 
could be used for load sharing.  The two boxes would share information 
including their current load, and the least loaded box would then do an arp 
broadcast to the adjacent router to define the current path to the virtual 
IP address.

Neil

At 09:01 11/10/99 -0500, Harry_Chu@Instinet.com wrote:


>Dooley,
>
>I've been in touch with them during the initial implementation which was close
>to 6 months ago.  I was informed that VRRP is only for failover.  I have also
>been in touch with them in the past weeks regarding load sharing, they 
>have not
>changed their position.  The only direction they gave us was to look into 
>layer
>4 switch and disable VRRP.
>
>Unless you can explain your point please do not make this claim, it is not
>productive to the list to put out information which can not be confirmed nor
>backed up by whoever offered it.
>
>HC
>
>
>
>
>"Carric Dooley" <carric@com2usa.com> on 11/09/99 05:43:33 PM
>
>To:   Harry Chu/CTS/US/INSTINET@INSTINET
>Subject:  Re: [FW1] State Sync in 4.1 Beta
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Harry,
>
>Perhaps you should call your Nokia vendor.  They will tell you load
>sharing can be accomplished through VRRP.  They just don't recommend
>it.
>
>
>Carric Dooley
>Network Security Consultant
>
>"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation. "
>- - H. H. Munro (Saki) (1870-1916)
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: Harry_Chu@Instinet.com <Harry_Chu@Instinet.com>
>To: Carric Dooley <carric@com2usa.com>
>Date: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 5:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [FW1] State Sync in 4.1 Beta
>
>
> >
> >Dooley,
> >
> >You are incorrect.  That is not how VRRP works.
> >
> >VRRP gives you a virtual/shared IP Address.  Sort of like HSRP for
> >Cisco.  Only on system can own the IP at a time.  VRRP can only be
> >used for failover, hence hotstandby.  VRRP does nothing with load
> >sharing.
> >
> >Also, dynamically routing and trading routes with neighboring
> >routers will work for load sharing based on networks.  However, it
> >then can not be used in conjunction with VRRP.  Remember VRRP is a
> >virtual address.  It represents 1 of 2 systems.  The correct VRRP
> >implementation is to have your neighboring routers point to the
> >virtual address, that way if you lose one, there is another to take
> >its plan.  If you are dynamically routing for failover or load
> >sharing you won't and can point to a virtual address.  It won't
> >work.
> >
> >Also, if you support HIDES with VRRP, you should hide behind the
> >virtual addresses to support the failover model
> >
> >HC

[deleted]



================================================================================
     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
               http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================