On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:46:50PM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: > Ted the incompetent, wrong on all counts once > again: > > > --- Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Danial Thom > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:56 AM > > >To: Loren M. Lang; Ted Mittelstaedt > > >Cc: Yance Kowara; > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > >Subject: Re: FreeBSD router two DSL > > connections > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > They aren't going to forward your traffic > > unless > > it's sourced by an IP number they assign. To > > do otherwise means they would permit you to > > spoof IP > > numbers. And while it's possible some very > > small > > ISP's run by idiots that don't know any better > > might > > still permit this, their feeds certainly will > > not. > > Yes they will. Routers route based on dest > address only. Are you somehow suggesting that an > ISP can't be dual homed and use only one link if > one goes down, since some of the addresses sent > up the remaining pipe wouldn't have source > addresses assigned by that upstream provider? You > are beyond clueless, Ted. Why do you keep opening > your mouth?
You understand the issues little yourself. I'd recommend getting a good book on NAT and IP routing. With a normal router and either static routes or a good routing protocol setup, this would work fine, but with NAT in the mix, it's much more difficult. The problem is that neither ISP knows about the network behind the NAT router, that's the basic reason for NAT in the first place. There are no official addresses allocated for the computers behind so there can be no routes to the computer behind. NAT causes the entire network behind the router to look like it came from the router itself. And since the router has a different address for each ISP, it looks like two independent computers on the internet. > > > > > >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% > > > > letsseenow, these are full duplex 'pipes', can > > we have some direction this saturation is > > taking > > place in? I mean, since you are at least > > trying to > > make a senseless explanation sound right, you > > might > > as well try a bit harder. > > Its not senseless, you just don't understand how > the internet works, apparently. I do this for a > living, and you just yap. You could use a good book too. > > If you were able to "send back" the data on the > "pipe it arrived on" then you would have uneven > use of the "pipes". So one could be saturation > the the other highly unused. Balancing the > outgoing data would reduce the latency that > occurs when a "pipe" is saturated. Its hard to > explain calculus to some who can't add or > subtract ted, so you should figure out how > routing works before you try something this > complicated. > > > > > >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, > > > > per packet load balancing is for parallel links > > between 2 endpoints. Not three, as in you, > > your first ISP, and your second ISP. > > Wrong again, Ted. Usually thats how it is used to > gain extra throughput, but thats not the only > thing that it can be used for. Since the internet > is connectionless (back to school for you Ted), > per packet balancing can utilize 2 outgoing pipes > to different ISPs as well. Obviously since > failover on dual-homed network works, you can > send your packets to any ISP you want. Routers > route based on destination address, as anyone who > knows how routers work knows. You can even use > per packet load balancing on 2 lines to the same > ISP when the other end doesn't support it; using > 2 pipes in one direction and only one in the > other. You can be innovative when you actually > understand how things work, Ted. > > > > > Surprising you would drag up a Ciscoism as > > your such a big fan of BSD-based routers. > > > > >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. > > > > > > > Sometimes you run into someone who is so > > ignorant > > of the subject of which he is trying to speak, > > - routing in this case - that you can't even > > argue with the person. Kind of like trying to > > explain the concept of the fossil record to a > > creationist. This is one of these times. > > Yes Ted. People run into you, the ultimate > ignoramous. I have 3000 ISP customers. This is > not just theory; its being done. You are wrong > about every single thing you said in this thread. > > > DT > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ > -- I sense much NT in you. NT leads to Bluescreen. Bluescreen leads to downtime. Downtime leads to suffering. NT is the path to the darkside. Powerful Unix is. Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2
pgpUqTjE60CEK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
