Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 04:32:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby <kris@catonic.net> To: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiport FBSD Routing? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104220423260.79078-100000@spaz.huntsvilleal.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10104211121370.7422-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Tom Samplonius wrote: > You are probably better off replacing the Pipeline 130s with a Cisco > 2501. The Pipeline 130 is a rather crappy T1 router. The Cisco 2501 will Been talking to fullermd, eh? Remember, I'm placing as little actual load in the Pipeline as possible. That's what "bridge" mode is all about -- making the Pipeline function like a T1 DSU/CSU with an ethernet port. > If each T1 goes to a different T1, 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. [FWIW, I probably will use a cisco 2621.] ----- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. <kris@nospam.catonic.net> | ------------------------------------------------------- "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." 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.4.21.0104220423260.79078-100000>