From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 18 03:31:25 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 0007316A4CE for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:31:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bigass1.bitblock.com (ns1.bitblock.com [66.199.170.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DAC43D45 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:31:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mitch@bitblock.com) Received: from dc1 ([66.199.170.122]) (AUTH: LOGIN mitch@bitblock.com) by bigass1.bitblock.com with esmtp; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:31:18 +0000 X-Abuse-Reports: Visit http://www.bitblock.com/abuse.php X-Abuse-Reports: and submit a copy of the message headers X-Abuse-Reports: or review our policies and procedures X-Abuse-Reports: ID= 41C3A486.00006540.bigass1.bitblock.com,dns; dc1 ([66.199.170.122]),AUTH: LOGIN mitch@bitblock.com From: "Mitch (Bitblock)" To: "'Elton Machado'" , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:31:19 -0800 Organization: Bitblock Systems Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <41C38165.1020709@norteglobal.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 Thread-Index: AcTknSXlGqDGd4QFQ+OFioIELuuASwAFLREg Message-ID: 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 03:31:25 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > 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 says:] Tons - don't think you will ever get there unless you can find some way of running BGP. You could find some way of load sharing, or even balancing, but that has little to do with route optimization. m/