From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 22 19:26:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rah.star-gate.com (216-200-29-190.snj0.flashcom.net [216.200.29.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335F814C1A; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:26:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA37994; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:25:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Message-Id: <200001230325.TAA37994@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@polstra.com (John Polstra), current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:39:39 PST." <200001220139.RAA59492@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:25:40 -0800 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > There are couple of RFCs on network load balancing with > > respect to servers or services and I am sure that there > > are also widely available research papers. > > Most of those concentrate on balancing the load on the server > itself. How about balancing the load on the network paths, > I doubt very much that we have a server load problem near as > much as we have a network load problem due to people not > having ready access to the data that says ``this server is > closest network wise to me''. > > Hi Rod! Perhaps RFC 2391 may be of use. Network Working Group P. Srisuresh Request for Comments: 2391 Lucent Technologies Category: Informational D. Gan Juniper Networks, Inc. August 1998 Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT) Enjoy -- Amancio Hasty hasty@rah.star-gate.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message