Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:25 +0000 From: Elton Machado <elton.machado@norteglobal.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Load Balancing Message-ID: <41C38165.1020709@norteglobal.com> In-Reply-To: <courier.41C1FE60.000083CF@bigass1.bitblock.com> References: <courier.41C1FE60.000083CF@bigass1.bitblock.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Totally true and problem get worse when you already have the equipament and have to implement a solution over it. We are also using a script at this moment but it doesn't do load balance. What it only do is to check if the current provide are okay, and if not, it change the default route to the other. But it think this is not the best solution at all. What I basicly need is to have some kind of route protocol at our side that checks for the small path and choose it. Does it is much harder to implement ? Cheers Mitch (Bitblock) wrote: >>Why dont you all do yourselves a favor and go out and buy one of those >>home dsl/cable modems that have 2 ports and provide load balancing >>instead. >> >> >> >[Mitch says:] >The only ones I've seen were rather expensive and aren't modem's - they are >routers... so you have to still have your ADSL modem, your cable modem, your >load balancing router, which generally does a poor job, and has all kinds of >limitations... > >Why spend $500 bucks on a load shared with an inadequate non-open source >firewall that doesn't do what I want and then have to add a firewall anyways >;-) > >And worse, it works in NAT mode, and probably screws up ipsec, and traffic >shaping too... > >Is that enough reasons to try building a better mousetrap? > >m/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41C38165.1020709>