> Bob Hinden wrote: > There is considerable current practice that disputes this. The > specific case that this draft addresses (host to router traffic) > is very widely deployed using protocols such as VRRP and Cisco's > HSRP. The advantage of distributing the load over multiple > routers is that it takes advantage of the resources that are > available and insures that the backup is working when it is > needed. Backup systems that are not being used have a nasty > habit of not working when they are needed.
As a rule of thumb, I prohibit backup systems that are not in use for the very reason mentioned above. When running a mission-critical network, the reasons behind using a load-sharing system is not to save money. If one is using HSRP, one does buy the hardware that can run a full load on a single network (and some safety net). The rationale behind running HSRP routers is NOT to run 50% of the load on two 1/2 size routers, but to make sure that the backup system will kick in real time whenever one needs it. I fully concur with Bob here in saying that: 1. Backup systems that are not being used have a nasty habit of not working when they are needed. 2. Doubling the hardware and have a load-balanced system (that will most of the time run below 50%) is small potatoes compared to "discovering" that your backup does not work when your primary fails. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
