nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture
From: "Peter E. Fry" <pfry () swbell net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:41:43 -0500
Brandon Ross wrote:
I've always found that these types of papers and products always miss one big area of failure, at least in my experience. What happens when the highly redundant device is skewered by a fork lift? Yes, I've had this happen. At least if you have a dual router config, and separate those routers physically, you have a chance of surviving such problems.
Apparently your skeweree was insufficiently armored -- an obvious design flaw. Where do you draw the line? Probability trees aside, you design your system and take your chances. Peter E. Fry
Current thread:
- Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Pete Kruckenberg (Apr 09)
- Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Neil J. McRae (Apr 10)
- Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Brandon Ross (Apr 10)
- Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Peter E. Fry (Apr 10)
- Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Brandon Ross (Apr 10)
- Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Brandon Ross (Apr 10)
- Re: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Neil J. McRae (Apr 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Dual node vs "Reliable IP" Architecture Jim Deleskie (Apr 10)