From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 21 03:57:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CB116A4CE for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.alphaque.com (ns2.alphaque.com [202.75.47.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF21A43D2D for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:57:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dinesh@alphaque.com) Received: (qmail 55866 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jan 2004 11:56:59 -0000 Received: from lucifer.net-gw.com (HELO prophet.alphaque.com) (202.75.47.153) by lucifer.net-gw.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 11:56:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.alphaque.com [127.0.0.1]) by prophet.alphaque.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0LBtZDQ001164; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:55:35 +0800 (MYT) (envelope-from dinesh@alphaque.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:55:35 +0800 (MYT) From: Dinesh Nair To: Adrian Pavlykevych In-Reply-To: <400E614F.4060804@polynet.lviv.ua> Message-ID: <20040121195028.M532-100000@prophet.alphaque.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Two ISP lines X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:57:11 -0000 On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Adrian Pavlykevych wrote: > Hmm, have you accounted for the fact, that if packets of same connection > will be distributed in round-robin fashion between several outgoing > interfaces and get their src IP "fixed", destination host won't see that > as single connection and drop them? you're absolutely right, of course. i realised the same a couple of hours ago, but am still mulling over the idea of a netgraph node instead of the multipath patch. one does get tired eyes from reading too many screenfuls of tcpdump and ng_tee outputs. :) > On routing level, IMHO, patch operation, you've described, is exactly > following multipath functionality. Issue with return traffic could be > resolved with both ISPs announcing route to your IP to the Internet. In > this way, return packets will be routed from the destination according > to routing decisions take by routers on the path. true, but still, if you're behind nat boxes on both interfaces, multipath still wont help. multipath as it stands now only works if both interfaces have public ip addresses. oh well, back to the drawing board. thanx for being a sounding board, adrian. Regards, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven." dinesh@alphaque.com (0 0) http://www.alphaque.com/ +==========================----oOO--(_)--OOo----==========================+ | for a in past present future; do | | for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do | | echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b." | | done; done | +=========================================================================+