From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 23 13:37:27 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 9FB4E16A49E for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:37:27 +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 5D2A543D5D for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:37:19 +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 21:37:16 +0800 Message-Id: <50v528$g00bv4@iinet-mail.icp-qv1-irony1.iinet.net.au> X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,169,1149436800"; d="scan'208"; a="536883172:sNHT97374522" From: "Christopher Martin" To: "'Nash Nipples'" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:37:18 +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: <20060623124038.12174.qmail@web36315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thread-Index: AcaWwjyHOzOHsZYFT7CB3h2jYBbzqwABvMxw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 13:37:27 -0000 Sorry for the mangled reply, html mail is irritating. ________________________________________ From: Nash Nipples [mailto:trashy_bumper@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:41 PM To: Christopher Martin Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Multiple routes to the same destination 1. how did you uninstall routed? 2. why not alter routes in a script, you are not going to send packets belonging to the same session in multiple routes would ya? 1) I don't, didn't and never was using, or even talking about, routed 2) The point is to load balance, not fail over. As said in my first reply, I have fail over covered. My question in return would be why use a custom script setup (using ping or such to detect the link state) for fail over when there are so many better ways of doing it? And, yes, I do want packets from one session going over multiple links. That's what load balancing is... Sure it's not going to account for packet size, it's not going to be perfectly efficient, but as said before it's better than nothing!