From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 17:56:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3263916A422 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:56:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.125]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FE6A43D6D for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:55:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 24642 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Dec 2005 17:55:37 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=EWyp7MxjDfxMU0c9Tjvgae/gQvw8X1ulH82RtSNLqXDTIk+5kLKtBtrO3Q1Q8LJDntJZqPIzZP7laIdb7eum+7++MuT7WJ+Hl83w62b7l9gbllHPjkq41Ks2hs9tfFJXpsrdZpQtIvqA8Wr9E7cUXS68les6nxun/lwdPKWmW9k= ; Message-ID: <20051221175537.24640.qmail@web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.46.186.215] by web33310.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:55:37 PST Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:55:37 -0800 (PST) From: Danial Thom To: "Loren M. Lang" , Ted Mittelstaedt In-Reply-To: <20051221174708.GD27642@alzatex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Yance Kowara , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD router two DSL connections X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:56:10 -0000 --- "Loren M. Lang" wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0800, Ted > Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > If both DSL lines go to the same ISP it is > easy, run > > PPP on them and setup multilink PPP. The ISP > has to > > do so also. > > > > If they are going to different ISP's then you > cannot > > do it with any operating system or device > save BGP - the idea is > > completely -stupid- to put it simply. If you > think different, > > then explain why and I'll shoot every > networking scenario > > you present so full of holes you will think > it's swiss cheese. > > And if you think your going to run BGP I'll > shoot that full > > of holes also. > > I strongly disagree. There are many reasons > for this. Two of which are > increased throughoutput and redundancy. The > primary problem is that you > need to make sure outgoing data for a > connection is using the same line > as the incoming connection. If the majority to > all connections are > outgoing and both lines use NAT and have unique > IP addresses, it's > simpler to setup. If you have incoming > connections as well, either only > one of the two lines will be used or you'll > need BGP or some kind of > static route setup by the two ISPs. For an > internet cafe, most > connections will probably be outgoing so it > won't be a problem. Thats not right at all, although in *some* cases it may be desirable. All upstream ISPs are connected to everyone on the internet, so it doesn't matter which you send your packets to (the entire point of a "connectionless" network. They both can forward your traffic to wherever its going. For efficiencies sake, you may argue that sending to the ISP that sent you the traffic will be a "better path", but if one of your pipes is saturated and the other running at 20% then its likely more efficient to keep your pipes filled and send to "either" isp. You can achieve this with per-packet load-balancing with ciscos, or bit-balancing with a product like ETs for FreeBSD. Unless your 2 isps are connected substantially differently (say if one is in Europe and one in the US), you'll do better keeping your pipes balanced, as YOU are the bottleneck, not the upstream, assuming you have quality upstream providers. Danial __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com