Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Bill,
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think
multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping
to accomplish. I'm guessing your looking for some sort of redundancy,
in which case something like CARP or RIP is liable to be the correct
solution.
I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was
running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that
were corresponding to two different IPs, going via two different
providers. When the first provider's link goes down, the second
provider is still alive, and when both providers are alive, the
traffic is balanced via DNS round-robin alias. Do you see some
better way to do it via CARP, RIP, something different? I am still
interested in other possibilities.
The canonical way to do this is with BGP. I can be done with CARP
if both providers support it and are willing to work together.
Unfortunately businesses tend to get bundled PA address space when
purchasing leased lines off of ISP. This means that a some what simple
transition from provider A to provider B can not be done with BGP. Also
as the OP states one the the address blocks that he has is a /25 which
most ISP's will filter from the BGP address table because it is to small.
I think the cost of learning BGP, getting an AS number and a suitable
large block of PI address space, getting 2 routers that can do BGP,
coupled with the consultancy costs charged by the ISP to setup the BGP
feed totally out way the cost of just multihoming a box for a few
days/weeks while the required changes take affect.. Ok so this is not
ideal but hey it works and its simpler..
Just my 2c
Tom
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
