Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:15:22 -0600 From: Tom Judge <tom@tomjudge.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Cc: Nick Barnes <Nick.Barnes@pobox.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host Message-ID: <47BA037A.8010405@tomjudge.com> In-Reply-To: <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <38308.1203368454@thrush.ravenbrook.com> <20080218163618.5e6672d3.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU> <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru>: > >> 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. > Unfortunately businesses tend to get bundled PA address space when purchasing leased lines off of ISP. This means that a some what simple transition from provider A to provider B can not be done with BGP. Also as the OP states one the the address blocks that he has is a /25 which most ISP's will filter from the BGP address table because it is to small. I think the cost of learning BGP, getting an AS number and a suitable large block of PI address space, getting 2 routers that can do BGP, coupled with the consultancy costs charged by the ISP to setup the BGP feed totally out way the cost of just multihoming a box for a few days/weeks while the required changes take affect.. Ok so this is not ideal but hey it works and its simpler.. Just my 2c Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47BA037A.8010405>