From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 29 20:06:50 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77911F54 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:06:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [66.251.72.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 388742CE4 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:06:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nber3.nber.org (nber3.nber.org [66.251.72.73]) by mail2.nber.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6TK6auL018741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:06:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:06:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Terje Elde Subject: Re: 2 lines In-Reply-To: <62E804FE-0941-4F40-83C5-8BCAC26CB3E0@elde.net> Message-ID: References: <51F66820.4080907@aboutsupport.com> <51F668E2.4090806@aboutsupport.com> <1375105599.9477.2811311.2C84EDDD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <51F69A9F.3050800@aboutsupport.com> <62E804FE-0941-4F40-83C5-8BCAC26CB3E0@elde.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.39/RELEASE, bases: 20130729 #10735308, check: 20130729 clean Cc: "Zyumbilev, Peter" , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:06:50 -0000 On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Terje Elde wrote: > On 29. juli 2013, at 18:38, "Zyumbilev, Peter" wrote: >> Not sure what is the best way nowadays to get own /24 or at least /26 ? > > I don't think you ever said if this was two links from the same > provider, or two different providers. That's a huge factor in what your > options are. > > You'll have a hard time doing BGP-based failover with a /26. It's just > too small a route to be announced globally. > > This stuff isn't just a technical question, but also one of policy and > politics. In order to get to a proper solution, your best option is > probably to give the provider(s) a call, and explain what you'd like to > do. > > Depening on a lot of things, one option could be to have the provider > owning the IP(s) tunnel it over the other link durin fault. Hard to say > if they will, so you really nedd to talk to them. > > In the meantime, DNS-failover is a lot better than nothing. Did the OP say he was running servers at all? If there are no servers, then any of a number of "dual-wan routers" will handle the problem with no difficulty and minimal expense. If he is running servers, these routers generally come with built in software to do dynamic updates of DNS, that I understand works, provided you don't have unreasonable expectations about reliability. Just because some institutions can't stand 5 minutes of downtime doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate use for facilities that suffer 5 minutes of downtime several times a year. daniel feenberg NBER > > Terje > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >