Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 05:17:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby <kris@catonic.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: Wai Chan <waichan@hpu.edu>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: outgoing traffic load balancing with multiple ISP Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105050513170.23908-100000@spaz.huntsvilleal.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c0d455$00a50fa0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > This gains ISP#1 multiple paths to ISP#2 - ie: More > Bandwidth. Plus, it gives them a redundant backup in case their > direct link to ISP#2 goes down. > > In exchange for this ISP#1 agrees to credit your bill to > zero - in effect, you are now serving as a feed to them > that costs them nothing. I'm going to veto that one. I've read (alas, I'm not yet a BGP admin) that you can prepend your own AS as a method of equilization. As this scenario unfolds, you have two pipes which eventually diverge. You prepend your AS to the ISP #1 route (the big upstream) so that it's advertised as two hops, and then route normally for the other ISP (the five-year contract one). The net result should be two equal-cost routes back to your NOC even though it goes to two ISPs (really one). Make sense? ----- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. <kris@nospam.catonic.net> | ------------------------------------------------------- "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0105050513170.23908-100000>