From: Sadiq Yakasai (sadiqtanko@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 13:53:53 ART
Hi guys,
I have been thinking about the same thing for a while now... and this
is what I have concluded:
If you are not tracking any interface on the Active router, then
pre-emption is really not needed on both routers I would think. This
is so because there wouldnt be any situation when the Standby router
would need to take over anyway, unless the Active router fails
completely.
See a scenario below pls:
Suppose we have 2 routers:
Active (priority = 120, preempt) and Standby (priority = 100)
I dont have to have preempt enabled on the Standby router because
there wont be a need for it anyway. When Active fails, Standby takes
over. When Active comes back up, it takes over. End of story i
think...
But lets see what someone thinks about this though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:10 ART