On Thursday, September 05, 2013 08:19:20 PM Jim Pingle wrote: > Very true, though it doesn't always apply to pfSense > (especially where CARP is involved). It certainly > applies to Cisco and friends. That said, someone running > CARP would be less likely to opt-in to an auotmatic > upgrade, but the functionality could still be used to > notify the admin if needed even if it does not actually > apply anything.
Yes, I was referring to the Cisco's and Juniper's of the world. > If that much relies on a single router, though, > ultimately the design is the problem not the boot time. I can stomach the boot time, if it had to happen only once. On platforms that run IOS XR (like the CRS and ASR9000), line cards and fabrics can end up rebooting with every SMU (Software Maintenance Upgrade), which costs you about 5x to 10x minutes, each, and one could have several SMU's to run. This is otherwise frustrating, given SMU's are meant to be in-service, and even though most are advertised as hitless, they actually aren't in reality. > Where is this fully redundant and self-healing Internet > we were promised oh so many years ago? :-) It's in hardware - build two routers running the same function. Work on one while the other takes over :-). > Seems to be lost to companies that cheaped out and went > for many single points of failure. If you don't build hardware redundancy into the network (and no, virtualization of routers and switches doesn't count), you'll pay the price. > Very true for Cisco (if you can decide which of the > thousand trains and versions it would actually be > updating _to_...), but the latest pfSense is always the > best. :-) Yes, this concern relates purely to the Cisco's and Juniper's of the world. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
