RE: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Quite frankly, it's dumb as hell to try to half-ass a redundancy solution when you evidently need as close to 100% uptime as you can get. You need to either spend the bucks on leased lines from tier-1 carriers and run BGP (contracting with someone for assistance if you don't have the know-how yet), or preferably you should colocate with a real datacenter and hope they don't go out of business. - jsw
RE: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Quite frankly, it's dumb as hell to try to half-ass a redundancy solution when you evidently need as close to 100% uptime as you can get. You need to either spend the bucks on leased lines from tier-1 carriers and run BGP (contracting with someone for assistance if you don't have the know-how yet), or preferably you should colocate with a real datacenter and hope they don't go out of business. - jsw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 06:00:44PM +1000, Jeremy Lunn wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 01:09:13AM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote: > > Why not have a DNS server on each network announcing different IPs for each > > service and then multi-home each server? DNS on DSL1 would only annouunce > > IPs from DSL1, and DNS on DSL2 would only announce IPs from DSL2. Due to > > the > > way DNS servers are used in a round-robin fashion you should get crude load > > balancing ... if DSL1 goes down only the DNS server in DSL2 would be > > reachable and therefore only DSL2 IPs handed out. > > How is that going to be any better than having multiple A records? > Apart from the fact that it'd be more complex to maintain. > There should be an almost 0 TTL on each DNS server, and both of them would be primary for the zone, but with different data. But well, here in France, one leased line is more reliable than 2 DSL links... -- Nicolas BOUGUES Axialys Interactive
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 06:00:44PM +1000, Jeremy Lunn wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 01:09:13AM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote: > > Why not have a DNS server on each network announcing different IPs for each > > service and then multi-home each server? DNS on DSL1 would only annouunce > > IPs from DSL1, and DNS on DSL2 would only announce IPs from DSL2. Due to the > > way DNS servers are used in a round-robin fashion you should get crude load > > balancing ... if DSL1 goes down only the DNS server in DSL2 would be > > reachable and therefore only DSL2 IPs handed out. > > How is that going to be any better than having multiple A records? > Apart from the fact that it'd be more complex to maintain. > There should be an almost 0 TTL on each DNS server, and both of them would be primary for the zone, but with different data. But well, here in France, one leased line is more reliable than 2 DSL links... -- Nicolas BOUGUES Axialys Interactive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 01:09:13AM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote: > Why not have a DNS server on each network announcing different IPs for each > service and then multi-home each server? DNS on DSL1 would only annouunce > IPs from DSL1, and DNS on DSL2 would only announce IPs from DSL2. Due to the > way DNS servers are used in a round-robin fashion you should get crude load > balancing ... if DSL1 goes down only the DNS server in DSL2 would be > reachable and therefore only DSL2 IPs handed out. How is that going to be any better than having multiple A records? Apart from the fact that it'd be more complex to maintain. -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 01:09:13AM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote: > Why not have a DNS server on each network announcing different IPs for each > service and then multi-home each server? DNS on DSL1 would only annouunce > IPs from DSL1, and DNS on DSL2 would only announce IPs from DSL2. Due to the > way DNS servers are used in a round-robin fashion you should get crude load > balancing ... if DSL1 goes down only the DNS server in DSL2 would be > reachable and therefore only DSL2 IPs handed out. How is that going to be any better than having multiple A records? Apart from the fact that it'd be more complex to maintain. -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I already have multiple DSL links to the Internet, but I haven't done > anything more as far as incoming connections besides SMTP and a couple > others for remote workers. Why not have a DNS server on each network announcing different IPs for each service and then multi-home each server? DNS on DSL1 would only annouunce IPs from DSL1, and DNS on DSL2 would only announce IPs from DSL2. Due to the way DNS servers are used in a round-robin fashion you should get crude load balancing ... if DSL1 goes down only the DNS server in DSL2 would be reachable and therefore only DSL2 IPs handed out. -- Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Starnix Inc. Telephone: (905) 771-0017 Thornhill, Ontario, Canada http://www.starnix.com/ Professional Linux Services & Products
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I already have multiple DSL links to the Internet, but I haven't done > anything more as far as incoming connections besides SMTP and a couple > others for remote workers. Why not have a DNS server on each network announcing different IPs for each service and then multi-home each server? DNS on DSL1 would only annouunce IPs from DSL1, and DNS on DSL2 would only announce IPs from DSL2. Due to the way DNS servers are used in a round-robin fashion you should get crude load balancing ... if DSL1 goes down only the DNS server in DSL2 would be reachable and therefore only DSL2 IPs handed out. -- Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Starnix Inc. Telephone: (905) 771-0017 Thornhill, Ontario, Canada http://www.starnix.com/ Professional Linux Services & Products -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 04:46:53PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > If you had a colocated server on a reliable IP connection you could VPN > yourself a subnet from it over either of your two DSL routes. This might be > sane but would cause you to incur a lot of bandwidth bills. :-) I don't think co-lo centres are that reliable. My experience with Global Centre here in Melbourne is that they are pretty unreliable. I don't deal with anything hosted there at the moment but I know someone who does and I have noticed his DNS going down (which was really the co-lo having a network outage). -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 04:46:53PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > If you had a colocated server on a reliable IP connection you could VPN > yourself a subnet from it over either of your two DSL routes. This might be > sane but would cause you to incur a lot of bandwidth bills. :-) I don't think co-lo centres are that reliable. My experience with Global Centre here in Melbourne is that they are pretty unreliable. I don't deal with anything hosted there at the moment but I know someone who does and I have noticed his DNS going down (which was really the co-lo having a network outage). -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Customers who purchase T1/T3 service generate more revenue for the ISP, and although the difference may not justify the administrative overhead of adding a BGP customer, most do not request this. Some organizations (BEST Internet, before Verio gobbled them up, for example) charge an additional fee for BGP. They charged 500$/Mo. Address space is also an issue. You cannot announce blocks smaller than /24 into global BGP and expect the results you want. Some networks are still filtering announcements smaller than /19 within some ranges, SprintLink for example, as they took steps years ago to counteract routing table growth, and this remains a problem even as routers become more powerful and memory gets cheaper. I do not know how the 6BONE scenario would work. It was a shot from the hip, I'm sure you could do some research in this area, or perhaps someone else subscribed to the list can tell us how the 6BONE interoperates with the current IPv4. If you had a colocated server on a reliable IP connection you could VPN yourself a subnet from it over either of your two DSL routes. This might be sane but would cause you to incur a lot of bandwidth bills. :-) - jsw -Original Message- From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Fedyk Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 4:35 PM To: Jeff S Wheeler Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org; debian-firewall@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure? On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:29:46PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > Are your DSL uplinks from different ISPs, or from the same IP provider? If They are different providers. DSL 1 is 384k/1.5m adsl at pacbell dsl2 is 768k sdsl landmark (lmki) > they are differing providers, there is no way you can feasably implement > BGP. If they are redundant paths to the same ISP you could ask them to What do t1 and t3 customers do? Is the only criteria for "feasibility" a need for more IPs? > issue you a reserved ASN (65512 - 65535) and announce your /28 into their > network via ebgp sessions. That makes a lot of assumptions about software > support on your router(s), and of their willingness to accomodate you, of > course. I could get a second link to pacbell, but sometimes their entire network gets unstable, and I would still need a second provider. Doing the same with the other provider would require four links, and still wouldn't fix the problem if one ISP crashing completely. > > Realistically, you aren't going to make this happen. Perhaps you could > participate in something like the 6BONE, or simply colocate your obviously > mission-critical services at your ISP. > Hmm, I wonder how exactly this would work with the 6BONE. Can you get traffic from ipv4 into the 6BONE from the "normal" internet? How would I be addressed? I probably wouldn't choose my ISP then, I'd choose a company that connects to several ISPs, and that'll be more expensive. :( > - jsw > > Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:29:46PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > Are your DSL uplinks from different ISPs, or from the same IP provider? If They are different providers. DSL 1 is 384k/1.5m adsl at pacbell dsl2 is 768k sdsl landmark (lmki) > they are differing providers, there is no way you can feasably implement > BGP. If they are redundant paths to the same ISP you could ask them to What do t1 and t3 customers do? Is the only criteria for "feasibility" a need for more IPs? > issue you a reserved ASN (65512 - 65535) and announce your /28 into their > network via ebgp sessions. That makes a lot of assumptions about software > support on your router(s), and of their willingness to accomodate you, of > course. I could get a second link to pacbell, but sometimes their entire network gets unstable, and I would still need a second provider. Doing the same with the other provider would require four links, and still wouldn't fix the problem if one ISP crashing completely. > > Realistically, you aren't going to make this happen. Perhaps you could > participate in something like the 6BONE, or simply colocate your obviously > mission-critical services at your ISP. > Hmm, I wonder how exactly this would work with the 6BONE. Can you get traffic from ipv4 into the 6BONE from the "normal" internet? How would I be addressed? I probably wouldn't choose my ISP then, I'd choose a company that connects to several ISPs, and that'll be more expensive. :( > - jsw > > Mike
RE: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Customers who purchase T1/T3 service generate more revenue for the ISP, and although the difference may not justify the administrative overhead of adding a BGP customer, most do not request this. Some organizations (BEST Internet, before Verio gobbled them up, for example) charge an additional fee for BGP. They charged 500$/Mo. Address space is also an issue. You cannot announce blocks smaller than /24 into global BGP and expect the results you want. Some networks are still filtering announcements smaller than /19 within some ranges, SprintLink for example, as they took steps years ago to counteract routing table growth, and this remains a problem even as routers become more powerful and memory gets cheaper. I do not know how the 6BONE scenario would work. It was a shot from the hip, I'm sure you could do some research in this area, or perhaps someone else subscribed to the list can tell us how the 6BONE interoperates with the current IPv4. If you had a colocated server on a reliable IP connection you could VPN yourself a subnet from it over either of your two DSL routes. This might be sane but would cause you to incur a lot of bandwidth bills. :-) - jsw -Original Message- From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Fedyk Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 4:35 PM To: Jeff S Wheeler Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure? On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:29:46PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > Are your DSL uplinks from different ISPs, or from the same IP provider? If They are different providers. DSL 1 is 384k/1.5m adsl at pacbell dsl2 is 768k sdsl landmark (lmki) > they are differing providers, there is no way you can feasably implement > BGP. If they are redundant paths to the same ISP you could ask them to What do t1 and t3 customers do? Is the only criteria for "feasibility" a need for more IPs? > issue you a reserved ASN (65512 - 65535) and announce your /28 into their > network via ebgp sessions. That makes a lot of assumptions about software > support on your router(s), and of their willingness to accomodate you, of > course. I could get a second link to pacbell, but sometimes their entire network gets unstable, and I would still need a second provider. Doing the same with the other provider would require four links, and still wouldn't fix the problem if one ISP crashing completely. > > Realistically, you aren't going to make this happen. Perhaps you could > participate in something like the 6BONE, or simply colocate your obviously > mission-critical services at your ISP. > Hmm, I wonder how exactly this would work with the 6BONE. Can you get traffic from ipv4 into the 6BONE from the "normal" internet? How would I be addressed? I probably wouldn't choose my ISP then, I'd choose a company that connects to several ISPs, and that'll be more expensive. :( > - jsw > > Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:29:46PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote: > Are your DSL uplinks from different ISPs, or from the same IP provider? If They are different providers. DSL 1 is 384k/1.5m adsl at pacbell dsl2 is 768k sdsl landmark (lmki) > they are differing providers, there is no way you can feasably implement > BGP. If they are redundant paths to the same ISP you could ask them to What do t1 and t3 customers do? Is the only criteria for "feasibility" a need for more IPs? > issue you a reserved ASN (65512 - 65535) and announce your /28 into their > network via ebgp sessions. That makes a lot of assumptions about software > support on your router(s), and of their willingness to accomodate you, of > course. I could get a second link to pacbell, but sometimes their entire network gets unstable, and I would still need a second provider. Doing the same with the other provider would require four links, and still wouldn't fix the problem if one ISP crashing completely. > > Realistically, you aren't going to make this happen. Perhaps you could > participate in something like the 6BONE, or simply colocate your obviously > mission-critical services at your ISP. > Hmm, I wonder how exactly this would work with the 6BONE. Can you get traffic from ipv4 into the 6BONE from the "normal" internet? How would I be addressed? I probably wouldn't choose my ISP then, I'd choose a company that connects to several ISPs, and that'll be more expensive. :( > - jsw > > Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Are your DSL uplinks from different ISPs, or from the same IP provider? If they are differing providers, there is no way you can feasably implement BGP. If they are redundant paths to the same ISP you could ask them to issue you a reserved ASN (65512 - 65535) and announce your /28 into their network via ebgp sessions. That makes a lot of assumptions about software support on your router(s), and of their willingness to accomodate you, of course. Realistically, you aren't going to make this happen. Perhaps you could participate in something like the 6BONE, or simply colocate your obviously mission-critical services at your ISP. - jsw -Original Message- From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Fedyk Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:22 PM To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org Cc: debian-firewall@lists.debian.org Subject: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure? Hi, I don't believe I'm subscribed to this list, so please cc me also. (I'm on so many debian lists, and I put all of the low traffic ones in one folder...) I already have multiple DSL links to the Internet, but I haven't done anything more as far as incoming connections besides SMTP and a couple others for remote workers. The problem now is I want to put a FTP and DNS server up. These by them selves aren't a problem, but sometimes one of the DSLs will go down. I'd only qualify for a /28 block of IPs, is there any way I can get bgp routing at my shop? I'm willing to read all the info I need, and have an interest in this area anyway... This message isn't meant to start a flame war about DSL reliability, as even with fiber it is recommended to multi-home. DNS round-robin will do 80% of the job, but there will be intermittent access when one of the links goes down. I've considered getting an account on a remote server, and just forward the connections here, but that defeats the whole purpose of having the server local. Is there anything I'm missing? TIA, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure?
Are your DSL uplinks from different ISPs, or from the same IP provider? If they are differing providers, there is no way you can feasably implement BGP. If they are redundant paths to the same ISP you could ask them to issue you a reserved ASN (65512 - 65535) and announce your /28 into their network via ebgp sessions. That makes a lot of assumptions about software support on your router(s), and of their willingness to accomodate you, of course. Realistically, you aren't going to make this happen. Perhaps you could participate in something like the 6BONE, or simply colocate your obviously mission-critical services at your ISP. - jsw -Original Message- From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Fedyk Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Multiple DSLs, and switching incoming route upon failure? Hi, I don't believe I'm subscribed to this list, so please cc me also. (I'm on so many debian lists, and I put all of the low traffic ones in one folder...) I already have multiple DSL links to the Internet, but I haven't done anything more as far as incoming connections besides SMTP and a couple others for remote workers. The problem now is I want to put a FTP and DNS server up. These by them selves aren't a problem, but sometimes one of the DSLs will go down. I'd only qualify for a /28 block of IPs, is there any way I can get bgp routing at my shop? I'm willing to read all the info I need, and have an interest in this area anyway... This message isn't meant to start a flame war about DSL reliability, as even with fiber it is recommended to multi-home. DNS round-robin will do 80% of the job, but there will be intermittent access when one of the links goes down. I've considered getting an account on a remote server, and just forward the connections here, but that defeats the whole purpose of having the server local. Is there anything I'm missing? TIA, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
