Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:15:22 -0600 From: Tom Judge <tom@tomjudge.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Cc: Nick Barnes <Nick.Barnes@pobox.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host Message-ID: <47BA037A.8010405@tomjudge.com> In-Reply-To: <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <38308.1203368454@thrush.ravenbrook.com> <20080218163618.5e6672d3.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU> <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru>: > >> Bill, >> >> Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: >>> I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think >>> multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping >>> to accomplish. I'm guessing your looking for some sort of redundancy, >>> in which case something like CARP or RIP is liable to be the correct >>> solution. >> I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was >> running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that >> were corresponding to two different IPs, going via two different >> providers. When the first provider's link goes down, the second >> provider is still alive, and when both providers are alive, the >> traffic is balanced via DNS round-robin alias. Do you see some >> better way to do it via CARP, RIP, something different? I am still >> interested in other possibilities. > > The canonical way to do this is with BGP. I can be done with CARP > if both providers support it and are willing to work together. > Unfortunately businesses tend to get bundled PA address space when purchasing leased lines off of ISP. This means that a some what simple transition from provider A to provider B can not be done with BGP. Also as the OP states one the the address blocks that he has is a /25 which most ISP's will filter from the BGP address table because it is to small. I think the cost of learning BGP, getting an AS number and a suitable large block of PI address space, getting 2 routers that can do BGP, coupled with the consultancy costs charged by the ISP to setup the BGP feed totally out way the cost of just multihoming a box for a few days/weeks while the required changes take affect.. Ok so this is not ideal but hey it works and its simpler.. Just my 2c Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47BA037A.8010405>