From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 6 17:18:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E0F16A41F for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:18:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ericx@vineyard.net) Received: from vineyard.net (k1.vineyard.net [204.17.195.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C204143D45 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:18:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ericx@vineyard.net) Received: from localhost (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by vineyard.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A939F91509; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vineyard.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (king1.vineyard.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 63693-01-63; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [204.17.195.113] (cheesenip.vineyard.net [204.17.195.113]) by vineyard.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361249162D; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <431DCF52.9080403@vineyard.net> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:18:10 -0400 From: "Eric W. Bates" Organization: Vineyard.NET, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050726) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ovidiu Ene References: <430656A8.5030103@unixware.ro> In-Reply-To: <430656A8.5030103@unixware.ro> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-king1 at Vineyard.NET Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Load Balancing - Nice and Easy - no BGP, no isp help. X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:18:15 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've seen one commercial product control incoming load-balancing with DNS. Theoretically if you set the TTL for the RRs down low (I've never gone shorter than 300 seconds; but I suppose you could go smaller); you could then 'direct' incoming traffic by providing one IP or the other. Tools like bind9-dlz should make it easier to control the zone file dynamically. In the case of a web page that requires a consistent route during a session, I don't know of an easy way to control bind response based on request source. You can put source configs in named.conf (we do this for "split-horizon" DNS when you use the same name server to respond to requests from both inside and outside a NAT). But I don't believe that aspect is hooked for dynamic control inside the latest version (I could be wrong). Can you share your pf config? Ovidiu Ene wrote: > Hello friends > > I am trying for a while to make a load balancer under FreeBSD. No BGP > support from isps! > > I would have: 3 nics, ISP1 nic, ISP2 nic and LAN nic. > What i've done until now, after reading lots of posts, googling for a > while: > > - I've suceeded to setup an outgoing load balancer with pf, it works > perfectly but only for outgoing traffic; > - I've noticed that almost everybody thing that it cannot be done load > balancing with BSD of incoming and outgoing without help of that both > ISP (BGP) > - I find hardware with proprietary OS/firmware that can do load > balancing without support of ISP. Some are cheap (300$), but at review > does not know to load balance incoming traffic (break functionality of > some pages accessed, since some of load is on one interface, some of > other, works corectly only if i setup to come some type of traffic on > one interface, some of other (for example trafic via port 80 on one nic, > ftp traffic on the other), also are expensive hardware load balancers > (over 1000$) that... i am asking myself how it works, without help of isp. > - I've found somewhere that it can be done load balancing but not with > one box with that 3 nics, but with 3 boxex, because (that article i am > "insipring" said that every box has just one routing table) because can > be created a virtual server that with handle routes from that 2 boxes. > - People told me that in Linux load balancing cand be done, 3 nics, 2 > external, one to Lan, with iptables. Here is a short article: > http://linux.com.lb/wiki/index.pl?node=Load%20Balancing%20Across%20Multiple%20Links > > > So, my question is, if some people made it (in expensive hardware that > did have the same OS, maybe even FreeBSD, and proprietary algorythms) > and in Linux it can be done (people told me, i've read articles and also > so it here, where i live) why it cannot be done under FreeBSD? > I guess it can be done, I want to do it with FreeBSD, and want to obtain > same performances as with Linux. > > What is your opinion about that? What should I do? Anybody suceed in > making load balancing work that way? > > Best Regards, > Ovidiu > > ps. FreeBSD is the best! > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" - -- Eric W. Bates ericx@vineyard.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDHc9SD1roJTQ4LlERAnZHAJwKnNsC9xX7iCc5GM3CV7jEpDlJHgCgyZUX 9U5JcwBy4JVlTru/8WLn/hU= =16h9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----