You could try VRRP on the routers or HSRP which ever is supported.
Patrick .
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Pepmiller, Craig E.
Sent: 25 February 2000 15:45
To: 'Michael E. Cummins'; Firewalls Mailing List
Subject: RE: Load balancing.......
The problem with two gateways at the client: The client uses the top
gateway until it can not reach that gateway. The DSL firewall/router looses
connection to the outside world but still responds at 10.0.0.150. Thus the
client thinks the path is ok even when the router is discarding all traffic.
Have the DSL firewall/router forward traffic to the other firewall/router
when the DSL line goes down. Or down the 10.0.0.150 address when the DSL
line is down.
Thanks-
-Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael E. Cummins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 8:39 AM
To: Firewalls Mailing List
Subject: RE: Load balancing.......
I would love to hear comments on this topic.
Yesterday I tried using two different firewall/routers, one hooked to a DSL
connection and the other hooked to two POTS lines with dial up accounts. I
intended to use the two firewall/routers as gateways, the DSL
firewall/router also offering DHCP services. I entered the two
firewall/routers as gateways on the 98 clients (10.0.0.150 and 10.0.0.151)
with the intention of having a backup slow lane in case the DSL services
went down - which they do on a semi-regular basis. (The DSL router was the
first entry [150] and the POTS router was second [151]) When the DSL went
down, however, the backup POTS line firewall/router never received any HTTP
requests, and the client machine browsers would all time out. I could not
ping out of the network; it was as if the DSL firewall/router was still
hogging the requests and refusing to let the second gateway "play".
I suppose my idea of having two gateways entered in all the client machines
was bad from the beginning. Can anyone spot my stupidity and smack me back
onto the right track of thinking? Or does my idea appear to be sound, and I
probably failed somewhere in execution?
How would you set up a small network with redundant services like this?
-- Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Blanco, Juan
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:12 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Load balancing.......
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Any idea or best solution how to do the following:
>
> 1 - To have connectivity to two different isp.
> 2 - Be able to use only one firewall (checkpoint)
> 3 - One connectivity via a T1 and the second via a DSL
> 4 - This should be transparent to the users.
>
>
> I really appreciate you help on this...
>
>
> Thanks.....
>
>
> Tony Blanco
> UJA-Federation
> *****************************************
> \\\|///
> \\ - - //
> ( @ @ )
> -----oOOo-(_)-oOOo----
> ***********************************************
> Where do you want to be tomorrow. Microsoft.
> One planet. One internet. Cisco Systems.
> Super Human Software. Lotus Notes.
> ***********************************************
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
