From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 17 15:51:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA19011 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from tesla.cview.com (root@tesla.cview.com [204.95.57.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA19006 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by tesla.cview.com (Smail3.1.29.0 #1) id m0tchdg-00067MC; Wed, 17 Jan 96 17:51 CST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 96 17:51 CST From: malenovi@cview.com (Nik Malenovic) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Another cool hack with FreeBSD... Newsgroups: cview.freebsd.hackers In-Reply-To: Organization: CView Inc. Cc: max@underdog.maxie.com Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk In article you write: >> Perhaps, not for 28.8 however can we load balance 128kb? 8) >Don't the ISDN cards do that for themselves? the difference would be like between routing and bridging. ISDN cards can use both channels but it's done via hardware. bridges route ethernet traffic based on MAC addresses (hardware solution). load balancing is like routing - it's done on higher level (IP). It would be interesting to see load balancing being standardized. you can load balance ANY interface. let's say a device in kernel to which you add multiple interfaces, which are multiple lines, with the same routing info and kernel knows it can send packet via any of them.. Any ideas how Linux and CISCO do 'em? Nik