Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:24:33 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no> To: "Kenneth Kabagambe" <kenneth@eahd.or.ug>, "Thomas Dwyer" <tom@dwyers.ca>, <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Multi-Homed Routing Message-ID: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DF30@exchange.wanglobal.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[.snip.] >=20 > this solution would work if you had alot of extra cash=20 > stashed away, just=20 > waiting to be used, which i dont think is the case here. yes=20 > bgp is the=20 > accepted solution but is way too expensive to implement. >=20 Aye >=20 > > However. > >=20 > > You could achieve almost the same effect by using a script to > > check if both gateways are up and if one goes down it automatically=20 > > changes the default route to the working ISP. > > Then automatically adjust your DNS pointers to the new ip=20 > address(es). >=20 > kudos to the venerable ping. Kudos! >=20 > >=20 > > Your public ip address(es) will change, and hence some people wont=20 > > be able to reach your site until their DNS's are updated. Some=20 > > people have caching DNS's that wont expire a record for a long time=20 > > to not generate alot of traffic and wont reach your site at all. > >=20 >=20 > Stan, Cant someone use dyndns? wouldnt it be easier to use? Sten :) Dyndns is one of many similar solutions, of course someone could use = dyndns. I do believe that dyndns has the same "flaw" i describe above, but that = is a local dns management issue. So yes.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DF30>