Claer wrote:
This can be very problematic if your ISPs are running antispoofing
protections (they should, they rarely do). The other problem I see in
that setup is the asymetric routing it creates. It can be another source
of problems later. Please, try to check with a temp server (with one of
Hey Stuart,
> otherwise, as mentioned, you may or may not have problems with ISP
> ingress filters, more importantly it also be ok now but stop working
> later at some random and quite inconvenient moment.
Not to be a complete off-topic bitch, but isn't stuff like this what
prompted the invention
On 2007/02/15 20:00, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> i plan on connecting the 2nd connection that supplies netblock
> w.x.y.z/29 to the same firewall and, unless someone can point me towards
> a better option, changing the DNS for the site to point to an IP in the
> new netblock. if there are any "go
On Thu, Feb 15 2007 at 55:23, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> >i've read about using the route-to to balance outbound connections in
> >the pf address pools docs, but i don't see this being immediately
> >helpful for hosting purposes since the inbound connections should come
>
Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
i've read about using the route-to to balance outbound connections in
the pf address pools docs, but i don't see this being immediately
helpful for hosting purposes since the inbound connections should come
in on both netblocks in the case that the load is spread over t
just got a 2nd connection with a better upload capacity and would like
to use both connections to host a site i run. everything is currently
served over a single connection that supplies netblock a.b.c.d/29 and
terminates at the firewall.
i plan on connecting the 2nd connection that supplies n
6 matches
Mail list logo
