On Monday 21 December 2009 09:56:11 Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > On 12/21/2009 6:03 AM, Mel Flynn wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've looked over http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html but this > > assumes two different gateways for the two interfaces. > > I'm faced with two cable modems from the same ISP, with the same gateway. > > I can't lagg(4) the interfaces, since specific IP's are bound to specific > > modems. > > This can probably be fixed from the ISP side. It should probably be some > antispoofing rule that drops the packets you are sending via the "wrong" > interface. You could try communicating the problem to the ISP and hope for > the best...
I'd rather not go that route. However, I might ask the ISP to move swap two IP's, so that I have two consecutive IPs on two modems and can use /31 notation for the pool. Source hash should then work better. > > So I'm wondering if using stick-address with a round-robin nat pool is > > really sufficient to do load balancing of outgoing traffic and not get > > into session problems with various protocols. Has anybody had similar > > experiences? > > I have no experience on this, but theoretically a state can expire while > the upper layers are still active... so, I *think* you may have > problems... Of course, you could increase the lifetime of states True, I'm mostly worried about DNS queries and other UDP protocols. TCP should theoretically be fine. Thanks for your feedback. -- Mel _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"