Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:03:04 +0200 From: Terje Elde <terje@elde.net> To: "Zyumbilev, Peter" <peter@aboutsupport.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 2 lines Message-ID: <62E804FE-0941-4F40-83C5-8BCAC26CB3E0@elde.net> In-Reply-To: <51F69A9F.3050800@aboutsupport.com> References: <51F66820.4080907@aboutsupport.com> <51F668E2.4090806@aboutsupport.com> <1375105599.9477.2811311.2C84EDDD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <51F69A9F.3050800@aboutsupport.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29. juli 2013, at 18:38, "Zyumbilev, Peter" <peter@aboutsupport.com> wrote: > Not sure what is the best way nowadays to get own /24 or at least /26 ? I don't think you ever said if this was two links from the same provider, or two different providers. That's a huge factor in what your options are. You'll have a hard time doing BGP-based failover with a /26. It's just too small a route to be announced globally. This stuff isn't just a technical question, but also one of policy and politics. In order to get to a proper solution, your best option is probably to give the provider(s) a call, and explain what you'd like to do. Depening on a lot of things, one option could be to have the provider owning the IP(s) tunnel it over the other link durin fault. Hard to say if they will, so you really nedd to talk to them. In the meantime, DNS-failover is a lot better than nothing. Terje
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62E804FE-0941-4F40-83C5-8BCAC26CB3E0>