Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:03:04 +0200 From: Terje Elde <terje@elde.net> To: "Zyumbilev, Peter" <peter@aboutsupport.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 2 lines Message-ID: <62E804FE-0941-4F40-83C5-8BCAC26CB3E0@elde.net> In-Reply-To: <51F69A9F.3050800@aboutsupport.com> References: <51F66820.4080907@aboutsupport.com> <51F668E2.4090806@aboutsupport.com> <1375105599.9477.2811311.2C84EDDD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <51F69A9F.3050800@aboutsupport.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29. juli 2013, at 18:38, "Zyumbilev, Peter" <peter@aboutsupport.com> wrot= e: > 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.=20 You'll have a hard time doing BGP-based failover with a /26. It's just too s= mall a route to be announced globally.=20 This stuff isn't just a technical question, but also one of policy and polit= ics. In order to get to a proper solution, your best option is probably to g= ive the provider(s) a call, and explain what you'd like to do.=20 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 wi= ll, so you really nedd to talk to them.=20 In the meantime, DNS-failover is a lot better than nothing.=20 Terje
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62E804FE-0941-4F40-83C5-8BCAC26CB3E0>