--- Danial Thom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- "Loren M. Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0800, Ted > > Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > > If both DSL lines go to the same ISP it is > > easy, run > > > PPP on them and setup multilink PPP. The > ISP > > has to > > > do so also. > > > > > > If they are going to different ISP's then > you > > cannot > > > do it with any operating system or device > > save BGP - the idea is > > > completely -stupid- to put it simply. If > you > > think different, > > > then explain why and I'll shoot every > > networking scenario > > > you present so full of holes you will think > > it's swiss cheese. > > > And if you think your going to run BGP I'll > > shoot that full > > > of holes also. > > > > I strongly disagree. There are many reasons > > for this. Two of which are > > increased throughoutput and redundancy. The > > primary problem is that you > > need to make sure outgoing data for a > > connection is using the same line > > as the incoming connection. If the majority > to > > all connections are > > outgoing and both lines use NAT and have > unique > > IP addresses, it's > > simpler to setup. If you have incoming > > connections as well, either only > > one of the two lines will be used or you'll > > need BGP or some kind of > > static route setup by the two ISPs. For an > > internet cafe, most > > connections will probably be outgoing so it > > won't be a problem. > > Thats not right at all, although in *some* > cases > it may be desirable. All upstream ISPs are > connected to everyone on the internet, so it > doesn't matter which you send your packets to > (the entire point of a "connectionless" > network. > They both can forward your traffic to wherever > its going. For efficiencies sake, you may argue > that sending to the ISP that sent you the > traffic > will be a "better path", but if one of your > pipes > is saturated and the other running at 20% then > its likely more efficient to keep your pipes > filled and send to "either" isp. You can > achieve > this with per-packet load-balancing with > ciscos, > or bit-balancing with a product like ETs for > FreeBSD. Unless your 2 isps are connected > substantially differently (say if one is in > Europe and one in the US), you'll do better > keeping your pipes balanced, as YOU are the > bottleneck, not the upstream, assuming you have > quality upstream providers. > > Danial Another thought, if you are just an internet cafe, just send all of your requests on one pipe (whichever has the best peering), since the vast majority of your bandwidth is incoming. You don't need 2 pipes going out; you're only sending small packets, syns and acks for the most part. It greatly simplifies your situation. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
