From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 23 12:19:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 5CC1616A492 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:19:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from outsidefactor@iinet.net.au) Received: from mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony1.iinet.net.au (ihug-mail.icp-qv1-irony1.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.195]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64EFF43D46 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:19:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from outsidefactor@iinet.net.au) Received: from 124-168-19-56.dyn.iinet.net.au (HELO SAURON) ([124.168.19.56]) by mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony1.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2006 20:19:02 +0800 Message-Id: <50v528$fvu0nd@iinet-mail.icp-qv1-irony1.iinet.net.au> X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,168,1149436800"; d="scan'208"; a="536806125:sNHT66680928" From: "Christopher Martin" To: "'Baldur Gislason'" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:19:06 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20060623120208.GH36671@gremlin.foo.is> Thread-Index: AcaWvOzyHFNF9fnPSvWON/ACgL9xogAAKZiw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Cc: 'FreeBSD Net Mailing list' Subject: RE: Multiple routes to the same destination 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: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:19:05 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Baldur Gislason [mailto:baldur@foo.is] > Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:02 PM > To: Christopher Martin > Cc: FreeBSD Net Mailing list > Subject: Re: Multiple routes to the same destination > > Well, round robin is really not what you want with IP packets. > And how are you going to detect that a route is good without a routing > protocol? > Actually, round robin is exactly what I want. And I am not saying I don't use a routing protocol, in fact I do, but I want packets to be able to use two or more diverse paths of equivalent cost. It would seem that you are assuming that I want to load balance two internet connections which are NATed, in which case round robin might have issues with lost TCP sessions and weird reactions from servers as the apparent source address changes from packet to packet, but in a routed internal network the source address will not be changed by the router, thus negating that issue. It did seem at some stage someone was going to include it in OpenBSD: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20040425183024&mode=expanded To quote: "...OSPF also supports multipath equal cost routing". It's more of a case where we would like to use BSD as a router/packet filtering firewall for sites with multiple WAN links between each site, of equal size, and not have one site idle until the other fails over. Round robin is better than what we have: nothing.