On 10/9/13 4:55 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't quite understand why in the redundant VR use case you wouldn't >want the individual VRs to have HA enabled. It seems the code will >always set ha=false for RvR. I know if I loose one of the VRs, the >other takes over, so that is redundant. But don't you want the lost >VR to come back to life if it can? > >Darren > Darren, refer to the email thread "HA redundant virtual router" (started 8/23/2013), Sheng Yang gave an explanation there.
