Regarding the negatives to BGP:
1. uneven load sharing -- If you have 2 circuits with the same ISP, this is
not an issue. Otherwise, if you have a circuit with 2 ISPs (as the original
poster indicated) -- load sharing becomes uneven, and requires a more
complex configuration. And constant tweaking...
How does Rainfinity load-balance incoming traffic?
2. complex configuration -- Depends. If you don't care that your load is
balanced, you configuration can be quite simple. Especially if both
circuits come into the same router. If the circuits come into different
routers, then the configuration gets a little more complex.
3. requires AS number and cooperation from both ISPs -- Requires little
effort, and a little $. The only cooperation you need from the ISPs is for
them to configure a BGP session with you, which any ISP should be able to do
in their sleep. I would not classify this as a negative to a BGP solution.
4. giant routing tables that eat gobs of router CPU and RAM, etc -- ;) A
full routing table is in the neighborhood of 88000 network entries. I have
recommended, that if you are going to take full feeds from 2 providers on
one router that the customer have 128 megs on at least a 36XX Cisco.
What is the list price of a Rainfinity solution? What are the maintenance
contract costs?
-iden_fw
>From: "Mark L. Decker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'CryptoTech'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "'Gunjan Mathur at 9netave'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [FW1] Multiple WAN Links.
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:17:24 -0800
>
>Agreed. If transparent failover is your top priority, BGP is the better
>solution. If you host web servers internally that need to be reached from
>the outside world, BGP also prevents you from having to play games with DNS
>to provide access to those servers in the event of link failure. BGP has
>plenty of negatives (uneven load sharing, complex configuration, requires
>AS
>number and cooperation from both ISPs, giant routing tables that eat gobs
>of
>router CPU and RAM, etc.), but it is still the only solution that provides
>transparent failover for both inbound and outbound sessions in the event of
>link failure.
>
>RainWall as a multi-homing solution is really most effective as cheap
>protection and link load balancing for outbound Internet access and email
>(with multiple MX records). If you don't care so much that connections
>have
>to be re-established after failover, it's a viable option. Otherwise, BGP
>is the way to go.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
