route BGP
dear firiend, do you have configuration routing BGP in freebsd ? thank you ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: route BGP
Hi, On 22/03/2013 12:28 PM, just man man wrote: do you have configuration routing BGP in freebsd ? thank you I use quagga, because that's what I have been using for the last 10 years. http://www.freshports.org/net/quagga-re/ http://www.freshports.org/net/quagga/ You might also like to try OpenBGPD http://www.freshports.org/net/openbgpd/ Danny ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re[2]: route BGP
Hi, On 22/03/2013 12:28 PM, just man man wrote: do you have configuration routing BGP in freebsd ? thank you I use quagga, because that's what I have been using for the last 10 years. http://www.freshports.org/net/quagga-re/ http://www.freshports.org/net/quagga/ You might also like to try OpenBGPD http://www.freshports.org/net/openbgpd/ Or bird http://www.freshports.org/net/bird/ -- Vladislav V. Prodan System Network Administrator http://support.od.ua +380 67 4584408, +380 99 4060508 VVP88-RIPE ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BGP
On May 14, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Steve Bertrand wrote: Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: is there a way to have FreeBSD work as BGP router and/or at least failover between 2 different ISPs? I, as some random guy on the Internet, would recommend Quagga and, yes, it will work with 2+ ISP's on single device (server). It's well established and in use for transit-facing Internet connections. I, also as some random guy on the Internet, concur with Mike. I've got numerous FreeBSD/Quagga boxes that have dozens of BGP sessions, peering and transit. The primary reason I chose Quagga was it's similarity with Cisco in regards to the CLI (and it works with RANCID). If you want true failover between two ISPs, you want BGP. Steve Hi, maybe you can also take a look at OpenBGPD. Here you can find a very informative and effective presentation from one of the authors: http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/21c3/ You can find it in the ports under: /usr/ports/net/openbgpd/ Alessandro ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
BGP
is there a way to have FreeBSD work as BGP router and/or at least failover between 2 different ISPs? -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BGP
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 13:27, alexus ale...@gmail.com wrote: is there a way to have FreeBSD work as BGP router and/or at least failover between 2 different ISPs? While I have yet to work with either, I know that xorp and quagga will both do BGP. Kurt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: BGP
is there a way to have FreeBSD work as BGP router and/or at least failover between 2 different ISPs? I, as some random guy on the Internet, would recommend Quagga and, yes, it will work with 2+ ISP's on single device (server). It's well established and in use for transit-facing Internet connections. Regards, Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BGP
look at ports index there are BGP deamons On Wed, 13 May 2009, alexus wrote: is there a way to have FreeBSD work as BGP router and/or at least failover between 2 different ISPs? -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: BGP
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: is there a way to have FreeBSD work as BGP router and/or at least failover between 2 different ISPs? I, as some random guy on the Internet, would recommend Quagga and, yes, it will work with 2+ ISP's on single device (server). It's well established and in use for transit-facing Internet connections. I, also as some random guy on the Internet, concur with Mike. I've got numerous FreeBSD/Quagga boxes that have dozens of BGP sessions, peering and transit. The primary reason I chose Quagga was it's similarity with Cisco in regards to the CLI (and it works with RANCID). If you want true failover between two ISPs, you want BGP. Steve smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
(OT?) Anyone wanna address my ISP's issues? [CIDR/BGP question]
[OT Warning] Not related to FBSD, other than the use of ping(8), which is working as expected, apart from the fact that the network *isn't*. If anyone cares to give an opinion, TIA! I'm trying to get a land-based (DSL) solution to my rather remote office. Found a provider, they (supposedly) made arrangements with the local telco, sent me the DSL modem, etc. I set it up as instructed, but we're not getting TCP/IP here on it. Hours and hours of frustrating hold music on the telephone, WWW-chat sessions that get nowhere, etc. The modem sync is fine, but, as one tech put it, sync but no surf. It's been this way for 2 weeks. The DSL modem's outside (static) IP is n.n.n.70, the gw is n.n.n.69, and the mask is 255.255.255.252. From inside, I can ping .70, but not .69 (and, needless to say, nothing else, either). From the outside, it's the other way 'round. Traceroute (from outside) shows different endpoints for the two addresses (that is, the last hop before .69 is one router, and, when looking for .70, it's another router (but not the one that leads to .69)). If I did my CIDR homework correctly, the net is n.n.n.68/30. Using BGPlay (http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/), I get the message: The selected data sources have no information on prefix n.n.n.68/30. Please check that this prefix is globally announced. My question: shouldn't it be 'announced', if the ISP intends to route me TCP/IP traffic? I apologize for my ignorance, but BGP isn't something I figured to need to know at this point in my life (although, it doesn't hurt to learn, usually) Thanks again, Kevin Kinsey -- Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. -- George Bernard Shaw ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT?) Anyone wanna address my ISP's issues? [CIDR/BGP question]
Elliot Finley wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:07:07 -0500, you wrote: The DSL modem's outside (static) IP is n.n.n.70, the gw is n.n.n.69, and the mask is 255.255.255.252. From inside, I can ping .70, but not .69 (and, needless to say, nothing else, either). From the outside, it's the other way 'round. Traceroute (from outside) shows different endpoints for the two addresses (that is, the last hop before .69 is one router, and, when looking for .70, it's another router (but not the one that leads to .69)). If I did my CIDR homework correctly, the net is n.n.n.68/30. Using BGPlay (http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/), I get the message: The selected data sources have no information on prefix n.n.n.68/30. Please check that this prefix is globally announced. My question: shouldn't it be 'announced', if the ISP intends to route me TCP/IP traffic? I apologize for my ignorance, but BGP isn't something I figured to need to know at this point in my life (although, it doesn't hurt to learn, usually) anything smaller than a /24 will be filtered. The ISP would announce the larger block that your /30 lives in. Thank you very much, Elliot; You wouldn't believe how hard it's been to get anyone at, err, tech support, to even address the issue. It makes sense, I suppose, otherwise the global routing table would be much larger than it is (?) Anyone up for further questions? The .70 -- .69 route on the modem has a metric of 5, but with the .252 mask, shouldn't it be required to be one hop away? Guess I need to head back to class, Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT?) Anyone wanna address my ISP's issues? [CIDR/BGP question]
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:07:07 -0500, you wrote: [OT Warning] Not related to FBSD, other than the use of ping(8), which is working as expected, apart from the fact that the network *isn't*. If anyone cares to give an opinion, TIA! I'm trying to get a land-based (DSL) solution to my rather remote office. Found a provider, they (supposedly) made arrangements with the local telco, sent me the DSL modem, etc. I set it up as instructed, but we're not getting TCP/IP here on it. Hours and hours of frustrating hold music on the telephone, WWW-chat sessions that get nowhere, etc. The modem sync is fine, but, as one tech put it, sync but no surf. It's been this way for 2 weeks. The DSL modem's outside (static) IP is n.n.n.70, the gw is n.n.n.69, and the mask is 255.255.255.252. From inside, I can ping .70, but not .69 (and, needless to say, nothing else, either). From the outside, it's the other way 'round. Traceroute (from outside) shows different endpoints for the two addresses (that is, the last hop before .69 is one router, and, when looking for .70, it's another router (but not the one that leads to .69)). If I did my CIDR homework correctly, the net is n.n.n.68/30. Using BGPlay (http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/), I get the message: The selected data sources have no information on prefix n.n.n.68/30. Please check that this prefix is globally announced. My question: shouldn't it be 'announced', if the ISP intends to route me TCP/IP traffic? I apologize for my ignorance, but BGP isn't something I figured to need to know at this point in my life (although, it doesn't hurt to learn, usually) anything smaller than a /24 will be filtered. The ISP would announce the larger block that your /30 lives in. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT?) Anyone wanna address my ISP's issues? [CIDR/BGP question]
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:44:56 -0500, you wrote: Elliot Finley wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:07:07 -0500, you wrote: The DSL modem's outside (static) IP is n.n.n.70, the gw is n.n.n.69, and the mask is 255.255.255.252. From inside, I can ping .70, but not .69 (and, needless to say, nothing else, either). From the outside, it's the other way 'round. Traceroute (from outside) shows different endpoints for the two addresses (that is, the last hop before .69 is one router, and, when looking for .70, it's another router (but not the one that leads to .69)). If I did my CIDR homework correctly, the net is n.n.n.68/30. Using BGPlay (http://bgplay.routeviews.org/bgplay/), I get the message: The selected data sources have no information on prefix n.n.n.68/30. Please check that this prefix is globally announced. My question: shouldn't it be 'announced', if the ISP intends to route me TCP/IP traffic? I apologize for my ignorance, but BGP isn't something I figured to need to know at this point in my life (although, it doesn't hurt to learn, usually) anything smaller than a /24 will be filtered. The ISP would announce the larger block that your /30 lives in. Thank you very much, Elliot; You wouldn't believe how hard it's been to get anyone at, err, tech support, to even address the issue. It makes sense, I suppose, otherwise the global routing table would be much larger than it is (?) Anyone up for further questions? The .70 -- .69 route on the modem has a metric of 5, but with the .252 mask, shouldn't it be required to be one hop away? We really need further information to debug/diagnose this problem. I'll give you a diagnosis for two different scenarios. #1) you are using private addresses on your LAN and your DSL modem/router is NATting for you: possible problems: Your modem/router isn't routing. ( this is more common than it should be. we replace customers' routers because of this problem regularly.) Your ISP has fat fingered a netmask - most likely changing a .252 to a .255. #2) you are using public addresses on your LAN and your DSL modem/router is just routing for you: possible problems: Same possibilities as above with the addition of: Your ISP has *not* put the route in for your public block of IPs. Your ISP *HAS* put the route in for your public block of IPs, but for whatever reason, that route isn't propagating through their network. Those will be the most likely problems. I'm betting on your modem being faulty. Elliot ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT?) Anyone wanna address my ISP's issues? [CIDR/BGP question]
Elliot Finley wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:44:56 -0500, you wrote: Anyone up for further questions? The .70 -- .69 route on the modem has a metric of 5, but with the .252 mask, shouldn't it be required to be one hop away? We really need further information to debug/diagnose this problem. I'll give you a diagnosis for two different scenarios. #1) you are using private addresses on your LAN and your DSL modem/router is NATting for you: This is the case. possible problems: Your modem/router isn't routing. ( this is more common than it should be. we replace customers' routers because of this problem regularly.) We RMA'ed it already, it's the second box and same issues. :-( Do you mean it should be doing NAT, or routing outside (e.g., RIP)? I assume the latter? Your ISP has fat fingered a netmask - most likely changing a .252 to a .255. Well, not in the visible DSL modem's config. Possibly somewhere else? #2) you are using public addresses on your LAN and your DSL modem/router is just routing for you: not the case, per above possible problems: Same possibilities as above with the addition of: Your ISP has *not* put the route in for your public block of IPs. Granted it's not the case, but: I was of the opinion that maybe they hadn't for the one block we're supposed to be in, thus my question re: BGP for the 68/30 CIDR, but, per your answer, I've no way to know unless they tell me since the route isn't publicized. Your ISP *HAS* put the route in for your public block of IPs, but for whatever reason, that route isn't propagating through their network. Obviously I couldn't say about that. I'm thinking it's still all about routing. Problem is it's possibly more complex, since the local Telco has the DSLAM and the ISP is just leasing over the top. Whenever they get on the phone with each other, I can only imagine the finger-pointing going on. AFAIK, the local telco doesn't actually offer DSL from the local C.O., so it could be as simple, read 'difficult' for behemoths like the local Bell as someone actually going in the building and plugging some cable into the DSLAM, or punching a couple of buttons on said machine. OTOH, it could be a matter of someone with enough route-foo with either ATT or the ISP actually doing a lot of investigation and configuration. Those will be the most likely problems. I'm betting on your modem being faulty. Well, hopefully not anymore. Maybe somebody *smart* will take up my case. Should I have 'em call you ;-) ?? Thanks (very much! .. once) again, Kevin Kinsey PS Hah! Substitute ISP for C.I.A. below -- Finding out what goes on in the C.I.A. is like performing acupuncture on a rock. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Load Balancing - Nice and Easy - no BGP, no isp help.
Ovidiu Ene [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello friends I am trying for a while to make a load balancer under FreeBSD I would have: 3 nics, ISP1 nic, ISP2 nic and LAN nic. What i've done until now, after reading lots of posts, googling for a while: - I've suceeded to setup an outgoing load balancer with pf, it works perfectly but only for outgoing traffic; - I've noticed that almost everybody thing that it cannot be done load balancing with BSD of incoming and outgoing without help of that both ISP (BGP) - I find hardware with proprietary OS/firmware that can do load balancing without support of ISP. Some are cheap (300$), but at review does not know to load balance incoming traffic (break functionality of some pages accessed, since some of load is on one interface, some of other, works corectly only if i setup to come some type of traffic on one interface, some of other (for example trafic via port 80 on one nic, ftp traffic on the other), also are expensive hardware load balancers (over 1000$) that... i am asking myself how it works, without help of isp. - I've found somewhere that it can be done load balancing but not with one box with that 3 nics, but with 3 boxex, because (that article i am insipring said that every box has just one routing table) because can be created a virtual server that with handle routes from that 2 boxes. - People told me that in Linux load balancing cand be done, 3 nics, 2 external, one to Lan, with iptables. Here is a short article: http://linux.com.lb/wiki/index.pl?node=Load%20Balancing%20Across%20Multiple%20Links So, my question is, if some people made it (in expensive hardware that did have the same OS, maybe even FreeBSD, and proprietary algorythms) and in Linux it can be done (people told me, i've read articles and also so it here, where i live) why it cannot be done under FreeBSD? I guess it can be done, I want to do it with FreeBSD, and want to obtain same performances as with Linux. The only specific example you gave was the Linux one. And that one *is* doing load balancing on the outgoing side. I doubt it's very different from what you did with pf. What is your opinion about that? What should I do? Anybody suceed in making load balancing work that way? I don't believe anyone has. Or can, for that matter. Aside from choosing addresses for outgoing connections, you have no control over what incoming link a peer outside your network will use to communicate with you. Unless the upstream providers are cooperating, of course. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Load Balancing - Nice and Easy - no BGP, no isp help.
Hello friends I am trying for a while to make a load balancer under FreeBSD I would have: 3 nics, ISP1 nic, ISP2 nic and LAN nic. What i've done until now, after reading lots of posts, googling for a while: - I've suceeded to setup an outgoing load balancer with pf, it works perfectly but only for outgoing traffic; - I've noticed that almost everybody thing that it cannot be done load balancing with BSD of incoming and outgoing without help of that both ISP (BGP) - I find hardware with proprietary OS/firmware that can do load balancing without support of ISP. Some are cheap (300$), but at review does not know to load balance incoming traffic (break functionality of some pages accessed, since some of load is on one interface, some of other, works corectly only if i setup to come some type of traffic on one interface, some of other (for example trafic via port 80 on one nic, ftp traffic on the other), also are expensive hardware load balancers (over 1000$) that... i am asking myself how it works, without help of isp. - I've found somewhere that it can be done load balancing but not with one box with that 3 nics, but with 3 boxex, because (that article i am insipring said that every box has just one routing table) because can be created a virtual server that with handle routes from that 2 boxes. - People told me that in Linux load balancing cand be done, 3 nics, 2 external, one to Lan, with iptables. Here is a short article: http://linux.com.lb/wiki/index.pl?node=Load%20Balancing%20Across%20Multiple%20Links So, my question is, if some people made it (in expensive hardware that did have the same OS, maybe even FreeBSD, and proprietary algorythms) and in Linux it can be done (people told me, i've read articles and also so it here, where i live) why it cannot be done under FreeBSD? I guess it can be done, I want to do it with FreeBSD, and want to obtain same performances as with Linux. What is your opinion about that? What should I do? Anybody suceed in making load balancing work that way? Best Regards, Ovidiu ps. FreeBSD is the best! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP server?
Hello all I'm trying to get router ffrom mine country.. so I will be able to NAT router to my country without any limit.. look what I get from my ISP: (email) configured: router bgp 13194 neighbor 213.226.136.250 remote-as 65006 configure Your ZEBRA: remote-as: 13194 neighbor: 213.252.192.153 ebgp-multihop: 4 How is it done ? here is my conf file: cat bgpd.conf password zebra enable password zebra router bgp 65006 bgp router-id 213.226.136.253 neighbor 213.252.192.153 remote-as 13194 neighbor 213.252.192.153 ebgp-multihop 4 smux peer 1.3.6.1.2.1.14 test log file /var/log/zebra/bgpd.log but i still can't get those routes.. can anyone be so kind and help me? Never worked with bgp routers -- Best regards,Hugle ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP On Host
Has anybody heard of making a webserver redundant using BGP? That is, if I set up 2 machines on different ISP's, with exactly the same content on them (mirrored). If both hosts are up, the traffic is routed to the closes server to the person making the request. Otherwise, if one server is down, traffic is automatically re-routed to the other box. Sincerely, Rick Duvall Online Highways System Administrator Office: (541) 997-8401 x 111 Cell: (541) 999-2338 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP On Host
(mirrored). If both hosts are up, the traffic is routed to the closes server to the person making the request. Otherwise, if one server is down, traffic is automatically re-routed to the other box. That is not what BGP is made for. It's an exterior routing protocol for routes between AS. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP On Host
I wasn't sure if it was BGP or if it was something else. Definetly between routers would be using BGP. But, I heard at an apache conference somebody was doing something where the machine would send a keepalive to the directly connected Cisco router, and if the router didn't receive the keepalive signal, BGP would re-route the traffic to the other host. Both hosts are on different ISP, but have the same IP address. Traffic is routed from the requester to the closest logical server. I think UltraDNS does this with their DNS servers as well. Anyway, I don't know what the host uses to send the keepalive to the Cisco router, or even how to configure the BGP to make it work. I was wondering if somebody on the list has set up the same configuration on a couple of fault tolerant FreeBSD boxes. Sincerely, Rick Duvall - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rick Duvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: BGP On Host (mirrored). If both hosts are up, the traffic is routed to the closes server to the person making the request. Otherwise, if one server is down, traffic is automatically re-routed to the other box. That is not what BGP is made for. It's an exterior routing protocol for routes between AS. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP On Host
sounds like you are describing a load balancing switch ... two seperate boxes behind the switch, with a single public IP in front that sends a heartbeat to the boxes behind it ... On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Rick Duvall wrote: I wasn't sure if it was BGP or if it was something else. Definetly between routers would be using BGP. But, I heard at an apache conference somebody was doing something where the machine would send a keepalive to the directly connected Cisco router, and if the router didn't receive the keepalive signal, BGP would re-route the traffic to the other host. Both hosts are on different ISP, but have the same IP address. Traffic is routed from the requester to the closest logical server. I think UltraDNS does this with their DNS servers as well. Anyway, I don't know what the host uses to send the keepalive to the Cisco router, or even how to configure the BGP to make it work. I was wondering if somebody on the list has set up the same configuration on a couple of fault tolerant FreeBSD boxes. Sincerely, Rick Duvall - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rick Duvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: BGP On Host (mirrored). If both hosts are up, the traffic is routed to the closes server to the person making the request. Otherwise, if one server is down, traffic is automatically re-routed to the other box. That is not what BGP is made for. It's an exterior routing protocol for routes between AS. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP On Host
Kind of, except both machines are on 2 different ISP, in different states. At ApacheCon, I described how I have a server in Oregon and a server in Florida, and I have a monitoring program that does a dynamic DNS update when one of the hosts goes down. The individual described that what they are doing is something to do with BGP, in which they have multiple servers in different countries, all with the same IP address. Traffic is routed to the nearest logical server, until one goes down, then the traffic is routed to the nearest logical server that is still up. That is what I am wanting. Since I didn't get the person's contact information, I am trying to figure out how to do it myself. Sincerely, Rick Duvall - Original Message - From: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rick Duvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: BGP On Host sounds like you are describing a load balancing switch ... two seperate boxes behind the switch, with a single public IP in front that sends a heartbeat to the boxes behind it ... On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Rick Duvall wrote: I wasn't sure if it was BGP or if it was something else. Definetly between routers would be using BGP. But, I heard at an apache conference somebody was doing something where the machine would send a keepalive to the directly connected Cisco router, and if the router didn't receive the keepalive signal, BGP would re-route the traffic to the other host. Both hosts are on different ISP, but have the same IP address. Traffic is routed from the requester to the closest logical server. I think UltraDNS does this with their DNS servers as well. Anyway, I don't know what the host uses to send the keepalive to the Cisco router, or even how to configure the BGP to make it work. I was wondering if somebody on the list has set up the same configuration on a couple of fault tolerant FreeBSD boxes. Sincerely, Rick Duvall - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rick Duvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: BGP On Host (mirrored). If both hosts are up, the traffic is routed to the closes server to the person making the request. Otherwise, if one server is down, traffic is automatically re-routed to the other box. That is not what BGP is made for. It's an exterior routing protocol for routes between AS. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP On Host
It's a reasonable way to perform certain kinds of replication. DDNS can often converge faster than BGP, but this *requires* that clients observe TTLs. Many do not. I don't know about current browsers, but not too long ago browsers would keep the results of a DNS lookup until they died. We offer a replication service (as a special) based on BGP. We do not recommend it unless the DDNS approach will not meet requirements. And then we work to find alternatives! To do it yourself is rather simple (Catbert's grin here.) First. Find a collection of ISPs that will agree to accept your BGP4 announcements of this foreign (to all save perhaps one ISP) AS. Oh, get an AS #. Then get someone to assign you some address space that can be so advertised. If you're lucky you have a spare /19 in your back pocket. :) After that it's *easy*. OK, I'm being cute. Some large ISPs will work with you to do this wholly in their diverse facilities with private AS numbers and address space they have reserved for this. AFAIK, the last free version of gated will work for IPv4 versions of this approach. And that runs on FreeBSD. -sam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
