Hi!
It goes something like this :)) :
If one router fails the second one can send messages to the first one, but
I has to have a static route defined. Otherwise it will not be able to send
messages.
Router2 is not acting as a backup. The role of every router in a network
depends entirely on you. You say this router will be our central one, this
one will be for publishing messages, that will receive messages and do
something with them, ....
Best regards,
Kovi
At 13:59 18.6.01 +0200, you wrote:
> > At 12:38 18.6.01 +0200, Michal Jacykiewicz wrote:
> >>Distribution 2.1.1-production contains an example configuration with 2
> >>SwiftMQ routers, connected as a mini network. The routers have the logical
> >>names "router1" and "router2" where "router2" connects to "router1".
> >>Both routers have the same configuration.
> >>
> >>The question is: what is the purpose of such configuration?
> >>Is it only to show how to create "mini-network of routers" or are
> >>there some other advantages of this?
>
>On Monday, June 18, 2001, Gregor Kovač wrote:
> > I think they have pure example meaning, just to show you how to connect
> two
> > routers together and some other stuff. Of course the same applies when you
> > have several routers connected together.
>
>But router2 is not acting as a backup for router1?
>What happens when router1 fails?
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
>To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
>UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
>Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/developers@mail.iit.de/
------------------------------------------------------
SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/developers@mail.iit.de/
