From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 23 09:43:20 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 0542916A4CE for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:43:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.136.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F8143D41 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:43:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrh@it.uc3m.es) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60F65B69; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:43:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from cimborrio (cimborrio.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.95]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D5F5B68; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:43:15 +0100 (CET) From: Juan Rodriguez Hervella Organization: UC3M To: "Randall R. Stewart (home)" , Andrea Venturoli Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:43:14 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200401191533.i0JFXUDE050449@soth.ventu> <40106D1A.3000902@stewart.chicago.il.us> In-Reply-To: <40106D1A.3000902@stewart.chicago.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401231843.14422.jrh@it.uc3m.es> 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: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:43:20 -0000 Just some questions about this paper: "(...) Note that this route has to be at the same level of the tree, i.e. the code cannot return a less specific match or a more specific match (...)" Question: I don't understand why if you are looking for an alternate route you aren't allowed to retrieve a more specific route. This doesn't make sense to me. If you are routing packets using a route when there is a more specific match, you aren't doing "longest prefix match". Another question: if ISP-1 goes down, and you use this feature of alternatives routes, this still doesn't fix the communication problem. Unless you make something with the source addr. of the multihomed site's packets, the reply packets will be lost in the faulty ISP, imho. Regards. On Friday 23 January 2004 01:38, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote: > Andrea/all: > > An interesting question... the following link has > some thoughts along these lines... and something > for the BSD community to think upon... > > http://www.sctp.org/what_is_alt_route > > TCP could definetly use something like the above (with Itojun's Multi-path > updates as well).. it would give more reliability to even a singly > homed protocol such as TCP :-> > > R > > Andrea Venturoli wrote: > >Ok, I asked already asked something similar to this in the past, but it's > > not the same thing... maybe it's a trivial question... > >If I had two lines to the Internet: how would I use both? > >Could I just provide two default routes? How? > >What algorithm would be used to choose among the two? > >What if one failed? > > > > bye & Thanks > > av. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ****** JFRH ****** "If a camel flies, no one laughs if it doesn't get very far." -- Paul White