Of course not.
The VPN runs over a very reliable link, provided by a complete different
provider.
On 11/08/2010 10:10 PM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
When the Internet is down those machines can comunica with the others
but not with the internet.
So, if the link goes down i
On 11/08/2010 09:54 PM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
The packet routing solution is not feasible because those servers are
located in different cities, conected by a VPN.
That's entirely different than what you initially told us.
"In the same local network" does not mean "subject
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:54:18PM -0300, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado
wrote:
> But the setup I sugested is not :
>
> 1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
>
> It is :
>
> 1-2-3-4-5
>
> (Mach5 will be using the same internet link but it is not the same machine
> as Mach1. Mach5 will ahve no fallback rela
But the setup I sugested is not :
1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
It is :
1-2-3-4-5
(Mach5 will be using the same internet link but it is not the same machine as
Mach1. Mach5 will ahve no fallback relay.)
(
The packet routing solution is not feasible because those servers are located
in different cit
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:39:02PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The right solution to this problem is a packet routing solution,
> > not an SMTP message routing solution.
>
> Like setting the default route to the "right" gateway. That would
> be robust only if those gateways perform network a
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:32:00PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
When all links are down, you have a loop
1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
going at local network speeds.
But at least this will end really quickly :)
Mail should queue, not loop and bounce.
But what t
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:29:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> > > Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> > > Mach1)
> > >
> > > Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
>
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:32:00PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > When all links are down, you have a loop
> >
> > 1-2-3-4-5-2-3-4-5
> >
> > going at local network speeds.
>
> But at least this will end really quickly :)
Mail should queue, not loop and bounce.
--
Viktor.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:29:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> > Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> > Mach1)
> >
> > Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
> > forward the pending emails t
* Wietse Venema :
> Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> > Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> > Mach1)
> >
> > Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
> > forward the pending emails to Mach2 and they could be sent.
>
> When all
Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
> Like that : Mach1 --> Mach2 --> Mach3 --> Mach4 --> Mach5 (same link as
> Mach1)
>
> Thus, when the problem were raised by the faling link, Mach1 will
> forward the pending emails to Mach2 and they could be sent.
When all links are down, you have a loop
Yes, you're very right.
The scenario where none of the machines can send mail is (hopefully) remote.
However, I'll have to choose a "most reliable" link and set it's machine
as the last on the strip of fallback relays.
The worst situation will be when that link fails: all emails will
converge t
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
The fallback relays MUST be loop-free. Thus machine4 must NOT forward
back to machine1.
I was assuming that at least one machine CAN send mail :)
Your assumption is unwarranted, and fails to take into ac
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > The fallback relays MUST be loop-free. Thus machine4 must NOT forward
> > back to machine1.
>
> I was assuming that at least one machine CAN send mail :)
Your assumption is unwarranted, and fails to take into account the
possi
* Victor Duchovni :
> > Use smtp_fallback_relay for that.
> >
> > machine1
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine2]
> >
> > machine2
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine3]
> >
> > machine3
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine4]
> >
> > machine4
> > smtp_fallback_relay = [machine1]
>
> The fallback
On 11/08/2010 11:13 AM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
It is true?
What'll happen if I try it?
You mentioned this was on the same network. Just wondering, would it be
possible to do this at the router/network level?
-will
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 04:13:27PM -0300, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado
wrote:
> So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
You need to provide network redundancy at the network layer, using SMTP
forwarding to provide full-mesh network redundancy is not possible,
because you must
On 11/08/2010 08:13 PM, Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
That's an odd conclusion to draw from what Vicor said.
It is true?
um - no?
What'll happen if I try it?
What Victor said.
You could try a number of alternative solutio
So, I'll never acomplish a complete fallback setup.
It is true?
What'll happen if I try it?
Em 08/11/2010 16:09, Victor Duchovni escreveu:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:21:42PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
I need to set up a group of four Postfix serve
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:21:42PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado :
> > I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the
> > same local network but each one connected to a different internet
> > link, so that when one internet link fails, th
On 11/08/2010 07:21 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado:
I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the
same local network but each one connected to a different internet
link, so that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server
connected
(2010年11月08日 13:19), Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado wrote:
I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the same
local network but each one connected to a different internet link, so
that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server connected to
the failing internet l
* Luiz Antonio Emerenciano Alcoforado :
> I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the
> same local network but each one connected to a different internet
> link, so that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server
> connected to the failing internet link forwards its pen
I need to set up a group of four Postfix servers, all four in the same
local network but each one connected to a different internet link, so
that when one internet link fails, that Postfix server connected to the
failing internet link forwards its pending emails to another Postfix
server, one w
24 matches
Mail list logo
