From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 18 23:20:39 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 BE96116A421 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:20:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) Received: from 0.mx.codelabs.ru (0.mx.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DF213C458 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:20:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=one; d=codelabs.ru; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Sender:X-Spam-Status:Subject; b=KhzXKJwZ49zoWBig5Jk7qibUeK+1WDfmjdDwsnPNSTHFS/R7P06pF6hrWrn/HvxM6gHszO7iXN+5nvMTTtGChQjB41BRrF3Aa+967k03m/s2oKh1iCRHwMfgdtwW4+51THSPs0uThPiWtHLiqWOI7rS0ChIwAUV+6A6xWd4LrGU=; Received: from void.codelabs.ru (void.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.25]) by 0.mx.codelabs.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1JRFHn-000NUA-E9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:20:36 +0300 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:20:34 +0300 From: Eygene Ryabinkin To: Bill Moran Message-ID: References: <38308.1203368454@thrush.ravenbrook.com> <20080218163618.5e6672d3.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <6xiZ7xvVdDqVhj0EdhE90pfdIcQ@S1JitD8kpKQ9sTxL7Qyzy/kv7rU> <20080218170642.e079540d.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <7fVLvU+n7M2cgKK91Qkc92dxOZA@X/bj7yIvzuBvWMya3JMW3Pm7mBA> <20080218175433.4d2d4e21.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080218175433.4d2d4e21.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Sender: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 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 23:20:39 -0000 Bill, Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:54:33PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > > > I can be done with CARP > > > if both providers support it and are willing to work together. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Very, very unlikely for me ;)) > > Overall, Eygene, you're trying to haul freight with a Yugo. > > If you truly have a need for highly available system, you need to work > with a provider who has the expertise and is willing to do it. > > Of course, that's going to cost you more money, just like an industrial- > grade tractor-trailer will cost you more than a Yugo. > > Internet connections aren't just about speed like most PHBs think. There > are a lot of other factors, and this is one of them. > > But again, if you have the need for all this network redundancy, shouldn't > you have _2_ Apache servers in a failover (or load-balanced) configuration? > > To me, it sounds like you need to establish the real _business_ requirement > here. If it's true HA, then you're far, far from it at this point. If it's > rapid recovery from failure, you might consider something like heartbeat. > If all you need is to balance bandwidth between two links, there are other > hacks to make that happen. Possibly, you just need to describe the > existing business requirement better in this discussion. > > You're _never_ going to have true HA if you're using two providers that > aren't willing to cooperate. You're talking about industrial-grade connections. Mine were more like the home ones: two small ISPs, one with local Ethernet network and one with DSL. They will never play with each one in my situation, moreover, they should not even notice that my host is dual-homed. So, that was the cheap way to be online most of the time. Thanks for the education! I have only one question: what it 'Yugo'? I had not found it in nearby dictionaries ;)) Thanks again! -- Eygene