--On 20. Mai 2005 09:45:19 +0100 Peter Galbavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would counter this by suggesting that once you set aside common HTTP
connection, which is much of the public traffic now, many connections are
long lived. Streaming, file transfer, VPNs etc.
Yes espcialy VPN Co
--On 19. Mai 2005 19:24:43 +1000 Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. No, I think you're stuck with the
per-session pool behavior you're currently seeing. To be quite honest
though, given a long enough curve, won't it all theoretically
Thanks a lot for your reply.
--On 19. Mai 2005 16:35:28 +0200 Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
a) do the per-packet balancing on a dedicated box statelessly upstream
of the stateful firewall
I Think I'll stick with this option
b) write a patch that does per-packet balancing w
Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
I won't say your case of 'very few connections generating so many
packets that they need balancing' is hypothetical, but it's certainly
uncommon. Most people will have a smaller packets/connection rate and
per-connection balancing works well enough.
I would counter this b
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:44:22PM +0200, Manon Goo wrote:
> I am not loadbalancing between dioffernet pathes.
>
> Both lines are attached to the same Router at my ISP. My ISP does per-packet
> loadbalnacing on the down stream. I need to do per packet loadbalancing on
> the Upstr
I am not loadbalancing between dioffernet pathes.
Both lines are attached to the same Router at my ISP. My ISP does per-packet
loadbalnacing on the down stream. I need to do per packet loadbalancing on
the Upstream
--On 19. Mai 2005 19:24:43 +1000 Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not if the lines are to be used for a few very bandwith intensive
applications.
--On 17. Mai 2005 11:54:06 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 17, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Manon Goo wrote:
Let me clarify my setup:
OpenBSD-Box
DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW
CiscoATM Ro
Jason Dixon wrote:
Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. No, I think you're stuck with the
per-session pool behavior you're currently seeing. To be quite honest
though, given a long enough curve, won't it all theoretically balance out?
If you are balancing across divergent paths (different ISPs or ev
CARP + arpbalance does per-packet load balancing at L2.
This will not help me because my problem is with
outbound traffic.
So setup CARP + arpbalance on your internal interfaces.
Let me clarify my setup:
OpenBSD-Box
DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW
CiscoATM Router
Internet
On May 17, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Manon Goo wrote:
Let me clarify my setup:
OpenBSD-Box
DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW DSLGW
CiscoATM Router
Internet
The Inbound traffic is dirtributed by the CiscoATM Router. The packtes
are routed round robin through my
DSLGWs. This is solved. eve
On May 17, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Manon Goo wrote:
--On 17. Mai 2005 06:37:02 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
CARP + arpbalance does per-packet load balancing at L2.
This will not help me because my problem is with
outbound traffic.
So setup CARP + arpbalance on your internal interfaces.
--On 17. Mai 2005 06:37:02 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CARP + arpbalance does per-packet load balancing at L2.
This will not help me because my problem is with
outbound traffic.
Manon
man 4 carp
--
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
pgpVeOtxDGyzv.pgp
D
On May 15, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Manon Goo wrote:
Hello,
I have posted this question to misc@openbsd.org before. Perhaps this is
a better place to ask this question.
I have a problem activating per packet loadbalancing with a keep state
rule,
I am getting per session loadbalancing.
CARP + arpbalance
Hello,
I have posted this question to misc@openbsd.org before. Perhaps this is
a better place to ask this question.
I have a problem activating per packet loadbalancing with a keep state rule,
I am getting per session loadbalancing.
This rules does exactly the loadbalancing I want, every Packet
14 matches
Mail list logo
