From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 18 22:06:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FB416A58C for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:06:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C15B13C467 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:06:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.162]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:43 -0500 id 00056412.47BA0173.00010462 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:42 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: Eygene Ryabinkin Message-Id: <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU> References: <38308.1203368454@thrush.ravenbrook.com> <20080218163618.5e6672d3.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nick Barnes , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:06:44 -0000 In response to Eygene Ryabinkin : > Bill, > > Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > > I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think > > multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping > > to accomplish. I'm guessing your looking for some sort of redundancy, > > in which case something like CARP or RIP is liable to be the correct > > solution. > > I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was > running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that > were corresponding to two different IPs, going via two different > providers. When the first provider's link goes down, the second > provider is still alive, and when both providers are alive, the > traffic is balanced via DNS round-robin alias. Do you see some > better way to do it via CARP, RIP, something different? I am still > interested in other possibilities. The canonical way to do this is with BGP. I can be done with CARP if both providers support it and are willing to work together. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023