From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 18 01:01:32 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 D0C1F16A4CE for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from a.mx.interacesso.pt (super11.nortenet.pt [212.13.35.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B63943D49 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from elton.machado@norteglobal.com) Received: (qmail 21029 invoked by uid 104); 18 Dec 2004 00:59:31 -0000 Received: from elton.machado@norteglobal.com by mx0.interacesso.pt by uid 101 with qmail-scanner-1.22st Clear:RC:1(212.13.50.179):. Processed in 0.086813 secs); 18 Dec 2004 00:59:31 -0000 Received: from 50-179.dial.nortenet.pt (HELO ?192.168.123.1?) (212.13.50.179) by a.mx.interacesso.pt with SMTP; 18 Dec 2004 00:59:31 -0000 Message-ID: <41C38165.1020709@norteglobal.com> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:25 +0000 From: Elton Machado User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Load Balancing 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: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:32 -0000 Totally true and problem get worse when you already have the equipament and have to implement a solution over it. We are also using a script at this moment but it doesn't do load balance. What it only do is to check if the current provide are okay, and if not, it change the default route to the other. But it think this is not the best solution at all. What I basicly need is to have some kind of route protocol at our side that checks for the small path and choose it. Does it is much harder to implement ? Cheers Mitch (Bitblock) wrote: >>Why dont you all do yourselves a favor and go out and buy one of those >>home dsl/cable modems that have 2 ports and provide load balancing >>instead. >> >> >> >[Mitch says:] >The only ones I've seen were rather expensive and aren't modem's - they are >routers... so you have to still have your ADSL modem, your cable modem, your >load balancing router, which generally does a poor job, and has all kinds of >limitations... > >Why spend $500 bucks on a load shared with an inadequate non-open source >firewall that doesn't do what I want and then have to add a firewall anyways >;-) > >And worse, it works in NAT mode, and probably screws up ipsec, and traffic >shaping too... > >Is that enough reasons to try building a better mousetrap? > >m/ >