Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:15:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> To: Kris Kirby <kris@catonic.net> Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiport FBSD Routing? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10104220011360.29294-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104220423260.79078-100000@spaz.huntsvilleal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kris Kirby wrote: > > If each T1 goes to a different provider, well, that is kinda of a messed up > > situation. I see people trying to do this, and configure all their > > servers with IPs from each provider. It turns into a unreliable, > > convulted mess. Not a good thing if you want to achieve better > > reliability. > > I'm not saying I want to try to use both networks in a parallel > fashion. I'm saying I want to try to use a FreeBSD machine in place of a > cisco router. This requires managing the default/current route. Logically, > Zebra would have to feed the BGP route information into the routing > table. If cisco's already done it, it should be able to be done on UN*X. Yes, but FreeBSD can't have more than one gateway per destination. There has been a patch for that, but it has been lost. The routing table simply lacks the ability to store more than one gateway. I really don't understand why you want to use Zebra and BGP to manage the default route? If you are using default routing, you really don't need a routing protocol at all. Typically if you are using BGP, you won't even have a default route, because you'll have a specific route to every destination. > ----- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. > <kris@nospam.catonic.net> | > ------------------------------------------------------- > "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" 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.4.05.10104220011360.29294-100000>