From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 9 10:03:18 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC68A16A4CE for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:03:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lithium.nettersworld.net (e131.ip.nettersworld.net [202.67.150.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7222843D46 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:03:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mc@netx.com.hk) Received: (qmail 64257 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2005 18:04:08 +0800 Received: from lithium.nettersworld.net (202.67.150.131) by lithium.nettersworld.net with SMTP; 9 Mar 2005 18:04:08 +0800 Received: from lithium.nettersworld.net ([202.67.150.131]) by lithium.nettersworld.net with ESMTP id 54274-10 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:04:08 +0800 (HKT) Received: from mcpm (n19z178l96.broadband.ctm.net [202.175.178.96]) by lithium.nettersworld.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E17204970 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:04:08 +0800 (HKT) Message-ID: <005c01c5248f$a13ba0d0$df63af0a@mcpm> From: "mc" To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:06:15 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Subject: Re: multiple uplinks from ISP X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:03:18 -0000 Hi, I am using cisco 29xx and 3xxx switches. The problem with FEC is that I have no way to use dst-ip hashing as the load balancing option on these two switches, and that would cause biased utilization on a certain link only, i.e. impossible to utilize 2*100=200Mbps. and...if I were really to use FEC as the solution, I will need to get some much expensive switches from cisco, which is quite unaffordable and imho unnecessary in fact... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nickolay Kritsky" To: "mc" ; Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 17:58 Subject: RE: multiple uplinks from ISP hello I do not think you should mess a lot with interdomain routing here. Such a scenario (multiple uplinks from the same ISP) IMHO is better be solved on the layer 2. What you need is some technology that utilizes two Ethernet ports at once. About a week or two ago on this list was discussed similar setup using Cisco technology. Search for subject "ng_fec and Cisco 2931". I f your ISP is using the switch/router that supports FEC, you could do this trick. Also most 3com intelligent switches support aggregating links via multiple 100Mbit channels. If you have put 3com equipment on both sides of your internet connection you'll can get what you want. Hope that helps. BTW the first and best thing to do is to ask such question to your ISP. Nick -----Original Message----- From: mc [mailto:mc@netx.com.hk] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:32 PM To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: multiple uplinks from ISP Hi, The main problem is that I have no idea at all how should I setup everything..and what do I need from my ISP......I just know it was possible, but I can't recall the details inside, and a simple google did not return anything helpful to me. I agree with you that fbsd (or any other linux) is much better than cisco in terms of stability. The cisco routers at my site are crashing like cron jobs while the fbsd boxes usually have long uptimes. :) off topic: I used to be a network admin some time ago, but no longer true now....and unfortunately, in the past I had only very few chances to deal with interdomain routing, mainly in lab. I'm afraid I have forgotten everything by now :( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Goran Gajic" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:01 Subject: Re: multiple uplinks from ISP > > Hi, > > I have used succesfuly FBSD 5.2.1 as BGP router and it is rock stable with > quagga (check out www.quagga.net) - more stable then 30k $ Cisco 7206 :)) > Problem is if you have AS and LIR and if you don't there are other > solutions. Of course much depends is your uplink ISP willing to cooperate. > > Regards, > gg. > > > >> Hi all, >> >> If I have the following on hand... >> - 2 FastEthernet uplinks from ISP >> - 1 GigabitEthernet port on my switch >> - a subset of a /24 allocated by ISP >> The gigabit ethernet link should be connecting to my internal network. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"