On (2013-01-10 12:41 -0500), Darius Jahandarie wrote: > With multi-chassis technology you can gain something which was not > possible without it, namely the ability to protect against total > hardware failure of your direct uplink switch/router by using an > MC-LAG to your server.
If your server is linux, you can run 'bonding' to two different switches and you can use ARP liveliness detection to figure out when to switch to another port. Also emerging quite common pattern is to scale servers horizontally, where single server is not crucial to produce service. Then liveliness of service be advertised by BGP (e.g. exabgp). But granted, when you have proprietary service or server, which is SPOF in itself where you cannot influence of it's configured at all you may be out of options and may need to do something desperate. Personally if I find myself in such situation I'd accept that MTBF is going to be bad, and I'd opt to make MTTR small. So cold box sitting in another infra which I can remotely kick up, if the primary fails. I don't think, that even in such situation, multichassis will improve MTBF. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
