Re: [FW1] Nokia and Monitored Circuit

[ian_cuthbertson@uk.ibm.com]

Lloyd,

I like all interfaces monitoring all others, so if any should fail then all
interfaces will spot the problem and lower the value, but it should work other
ways to. It really depends what your design looks like and what you are trying
to achieve.

Cheers, IanC

Technical Directions and Enterprise, Geomar Technical Centre
OSU4B, IBM Warwick, Birmingham Road, Warwick. CV34 5JL.
ian_cuthbertson@uk.ibm.com


Lloyd.Webb@gehis.com on 13/10/99 17:28:31

Please respond to Lloyd.Webb@gehis.com

To:   fw-1-mailinglist@lists.us.checkpoint.com
cc:    (bcc: Ian Cuthbertson/UK/IBM)
Subject:  [FW1] Nokia and Monitored Circuit





I would just like to question our configuration as someone has thrown some
doubt onto it.

Is it correct when configuring Monitored Circuit to have all the other
interfaces monitoring your monitored circuit or is it adequate to have one
or two. What are the pros and cons?

For example:

Interface 192.168.2.254/24  Mode: Monitored Circuit
Virtual Router: 30  on Priority:  100   Hello Interval: 1
Backup Address:
192.168.2.1  on
eth-s2p1c0  on Priority Delta:  10
eth-s2p2c0  on Priority Delta:  10
eth-s2p4c0  on Priority Delta:  10
eth-s4p1c0  on Priority Delta:  10
eth-s4p4c0  on Priority Delta:  10

Lloyd Webb
Senior Specialist
Gehis Limited
UK


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





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