Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Tom <tom@sdf.com>
To:        Aled Morris <aledm@routers.co.uk>
Cc:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD HA configuration / Ethernet address takeover
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980429101728.29759A-100000@misery.sdf.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980429125123.1625C-100000@uk.ns.eu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Aled Morris wrote:

> Just to illustrate another approach - Cisco's Hot Standby Routing Protocol
> (HSRP) allows two (or more) routers on the same LAN to share an IP address
> which you can configure into your LAN hosts as their default route.  This
> address is distinct from the actual address of your routers, so the HSRP
> address is basically a secondary (alias) address. 

  This is a bit of different problem, and therefore a bit of different
solution.

  A better solution to the standby router issue is simply to have your
hosts listen for the default route via RIP or OSPF.  If they don't see
updates from a particular router, it is assumed dead and your hosts switch
to use the another router.  You setup route priorities to force hosts to
prefer a particular router.  Also, with the new equal-cost routing patch
for FreeBSD, FreeBSD will automatically balance traffic for routes with
the same destination and same priority.

Tom


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.980429101728.29759A-100000>