On 26/06/14 17:35, Jason Healy wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Phil Mayers <p.mayers@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
A lot depends on how stable the routing is, and how many next-hops are present, as well as how your routers hash between multiple next-hops e.g. ip or ip + port.
Yeah, I’m just starting to look into this. We’re on Juniper gear (sorry Arran!) and I think it tries to maintain a stable path for the
This varies. iChip and Trio gear use different ECMP hashing algorithms.
same IPs. In the worst case, we could just set them up with a route preference so everything goes to the primary until failure (rather than trying to load-balance). Our site isn’t big enough to have a load problem so this is mostly for availability.
Strongly recommend doing this. This is what we do. To expand slightly, we have this: Location 1 server A - main IP, service IP1, radius IPs server B - main IP, service IP2, radius IPs service IPs float between servers with ucarp static routes for radius IPs point at service IPs NASes point at radius IPs Location 2 server C - BGP advertised radius IPs with low local-pref This means we can fail over *between* servers in Location 1 by stopping ucarp; good for maintenance. If the location fails entirely, traffic falls back to the "DR" radius server.