Hell yeah. We use ISDN to automatically failover. With over 350 remote sites, it's not uncommon to have a main link to an office fail somewhere. With automatic failover, our users often don't even know something's failed. Manual intervention? You've got to be kidding. To tweak and tune if necessary, sure, but to initiate failover - no way. Been there, done that, bad idea in our network. Anyway, in Australia at least, it's still the most cost-effective failover for a network like ours (lots of sites, geographically dispersed). It has some annoyances, sure - but it's still definitely an option for me.
JMcL Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > I see more complaints / problems / issues with ISDN and DDR in > specific and > in general, in real world and in test situations. > > Idle curiousity. Is ISDN really viable in terms of reliability > for DDR > applications? > > In any number of mission critical applications, I have seen > major vendors, > major enterprises, and major service providers use manual > intervention as > the preferred means to apply dial backup. > > I welcome the informed comments of those who are obviously more > versed in > the topic than I am, with my limited exposure.. > > Chuck > > [snipped] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53940&t=53931 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
