--- John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm cco-familiar with GLBP. It appears to have > essentially the same > timing knobs with the ability to actively load > balance traffic. Is > my assumption that some traffic will not > experience any packet loss > if it is not using the failed path correct? For > anyone who has used > this, was the added complexity of this protocol > worth it? I've used GLBP, and I was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked. Certain types of failures were hitless, and non-hitless failures were still pretty fast. I'm not sure if it's fast enough for your application, but I thought it was great. ===== David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com