From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Apr 19 5:20:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wanlogistics.net (mail.wanlogistics.net [63.209.114.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294BF37B70D for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bv@mail.wanlogistics.net) Received: (from bv@localhost) by mail.wanlogistics.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05211 for freebsd-isp@freebsd.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:20:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv) Message-Id: <200004191220.IAA05211@mail.wanlogistics.net> Subject: Failover question/idea/hint To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:20:54 -0400 (EDT) From: bv@wjv.com Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Reply to: bv@wjv.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Once upon Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 10:08:18AM +0100, quoth Tim Priebe: > bill@bilver.com wrote: > > Reply to: bill@bilver.com > > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I had said: >>> > An old client of mine is bringing up a portal site. They >>> > current have a T1 to their location, but the site is going >>> > to be put on a server at our co-location facility - which is >>> > inside an OC-48 connected facility. >>> > They are going to keep theri T1 and the current site as a >>> > development site, but they want to be able to use that site as >>> > a fail-over site in case the main site goes down. >> > One apporoch to automatic fail over is to bind the same ip >> > address to the loopback interface of 2 or more systems, at >> > different locations, and to route to them with a dynamic >> > routing protocol. In your situation, it sounds like you would >> > have to use a tunnel from the one site to the other. You would >> > then have redundancy for server failure, but not if your >> > network went down, unless you can have the tunnel implemented >> > some distance from the co-location facility. > > Hm. I don't know if this is possible. ... > > One of these days I will understand this mess. > Do you have any sort of router(s) between you and your "upstream", > that are under your control? If so put the tunnel(s) on them. If > not will your "upstream" accept dynamic routes from you? We have a Cisco 7120 that connects to their Cisco 12000. > If so put 2 or more routers/FreeBSD boxes between thier routers > and your clients box(es) (in parrallel for redundancy), add the > tunnels from each back to the router or server at the client site, > and configure your dynamic routing. If you can not do something > like this, then you will have to use DNS. OK. I put in another net card in one of the BSD boxes yesterday when the 7120 failed (two weeks old). Wound up talking to tech support in Belgium as they were the only one open in the early morning hours. When the replacment Cicso gets in today I can look at that approach. We were going to be using tunneling for the main databases - as they have a Gnat box at their location - and we had planned to do the same at this side - so they could go in to update the databases and keep them secure. > The basic idea of binding the same ip address to the loopback > interface of different computers in different locations is used by > some isp's to give a single address for proxy servers, no matter > which pop you dial in to. If you use dynamic routing for failover > in such a case, you just must be certain that you can never have > any load balancing happening. Thanks - this gives me a new direction in which to look until we get redudant servers. Thanks for the ideas. Bill -- Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message