também sou de BH, e a net está complicada mesmo. No caso do monitor IP eu sempre coloco:
GVT: 8.8.4.4 NET: 201.17.128.102 Att, Ricardo Mendonça (31) 99585-1696 skype: rickwacman [email protected] Em 13 de julho de 2016 10:05, ancker (gmail) <[email protected]> escreveu: > @Eduardo, > > Vou seguir a sua recomendação e utilizar o gateway da operadora ou o > próximo roteador. > Quanto a DNS recomenda usar o da operadora ou google e opendns. > > Aqui (BH/MG) os links são GVT e NET. > > Obs.: por falar em NET... sem condição o tanto que cai por dia. > > > > On 12-07-2016 11:48, Eduardo Rigler wrote: > >> O da operadora sempre é mais recomendado. >> >> Via de regra eu uso o primeiro roteador fora da minha infra interna, em >> alguns casos é o gateway, em outros é o roteador seguinte. >> >> []´s >> >> >> Em 12 de julho de 2016 11:32, ancker (gmail) <[email protected]> escreveu: >> >> Recomenda alguns outros ou prefere o da operadora mesmo? >>> >>> >>> On 12-07-2016 11:19, Eduardo Rigler wrote: >>> >>> O Google é um dos provedores que mais utiliza rate limit em determinados >>>> horários. >>>> >>>> "Google implements ICMP rate limiting on most of our network devices. >>>> Please note you may also see similar packet loss in traceroute >>>> output. >>>> As >>>> such, it is not uncommon to see dropped packets in ping or traceroute >>>> results." >>>> >>>> []´s >>>> >>>> >>>> Em 12 de julho de 2016 11:11, ancker (gmail) <[email protected]> >>>> escreveu: >>>> >>>> Uso o google e o opendns para monitorar e não observei este problema. >>>> >>>>> Muitas vezes o gateway do provedor responde mas a navegação não >>>>> funciona. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12-07-2016 10:07, Eduardo Rigler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Provavelmente é algum icmp rate limit no provedor ou no destino, >>>>> >>>>>> aconteceu >>>>>> com bastante gente apos atualizar para 2.3.x. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vá em System / Routing / Gateway, opções avançadas e mude Data Payload >>>>>> de >>>>>> 0 >>>>>> para 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS: Recomendo não usar servidores NTP para monitorar ICMP, eles também >>>>>> usam >>>>>> rate limit que podem causar falso positivo como este. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> []´s >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Em 12 de julho de 2016 09:57, Ricardo Mendonça <[email protected] >>>>>> > >>>>>> escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>>> Olá, bom dia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Aqui trabalho com o 2.3.1-RELEASE (amd64), e com redundância sem >>>>>>> problemas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quais as operadoras que você usa? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Att, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ricardo Mendonça >>>>>>> (31) 99585-1696 >>>>>>> skype: rickwacman >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Em 12 de julho de 2016 09:51, Thiago Andrighetti de Pádua < >>>>>>> [email protected]> escreveu: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olá! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alguém está enfrentando problemas com redundância de links? >>>>>>>> Tenho dois gateways, mas ambos sempre aparecem offline, já mudei o >>>>>>>> ip de monitoramento para IP's confiáveis (b.ntp.br e c.ntp.br) e >>>>>>>> nada. >>>>>>>> Deixo pra monitorar com o próprio gateway, e nada. >>>>>>>> Achei o seguinte no gateways.log: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jul 11 16:50:05 dpinger WAN1GW xxx.xxx.xx.xxx: sendto error: 65 >>>>>>>> Jul 11 16:50:05 dpinger WAN1GW xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: sendto error: 65 >>>>>>>> Jul 11 16:53:09 dpinger send_interval 500ms loss_interval 2000ms >>>>>>>> time_period 60000ms report_interval 0ms data_len 0 alert_interval >>>>>>>> 1000ms >>>>>>>> latency_alarm 500ms loss_alarm 20% dest_addr xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx >>>>>>>> bind_addr >>>>>>>> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx identifier "WAN2GW " >>>>>>>> Jul 11 16:53:09 dpinger send_interval 500ms loss_interval 2000ms >>>>>>>> time_period 60000ms report_interval 0ms data_len 0 alert_interval >>>>>>>> 1000ms >>>>>>>> latency_alarm 500ms loss_alarm 20% dest_addr xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx >>>>>>>> bind_addr >>>>>>>> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx identifier "WAN1GW " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Detalhe, já desativei todas as regras do firewall, tirei nat, e >>>>>>>> criei >>>>>>>> uma >>>>>>>> regra em cada WAN l iberando entrada e saida geral, só pra ver se >>>>>>>> podia >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ser >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> algum bloqueio, e nada. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pfsense (Version 2.3.1-RELEASE-p5 (amd64) ) >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Pfsense-pt mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pfsense-pt mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pfsense-pt mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>> Pfsense-pt mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> Pfsense-pt mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pfsense-pt mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Pfsense-pt mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Pfsense-pt mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt > _______________________________________________ Pfsense-pt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/pfsense-pt
