From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 9 20:48:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54DA106564A for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:48:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Ggatten@waddell.com) Received: from mailhost0.waddell.com (mailhost0.waddell.com [12.154.38.61]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B478FC0C for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:48:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from emlpfilt4.waddell.com (mailhost.waddell.com [10.1.10.26]) by mailhost0.waddell.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D8160D6B; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:48:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from emlpfilt4.waddell.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D56195787F0; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:48:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from ADVPHTCAS0.wradvisors.com (advphtcas0.wradvisors.com [192.168.203.228]) by emlpfilt4.waddell.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9AC5787EE; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:48:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from WADPMBXV0.waddell.com ([169.254.1.151]) by ADVPHTCAS0.wradvisors.com ([192.168.203.228]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:48:27 -0600 From: Gary Gatten To: 'Chuck Swiger' , Leonardo Santagostini Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:48:26 -0600 Thread-Topic: Multiple tun loadbalancing question Thread-Index: AcuATo5xy4xU4HxHSPaBBmoSx9zoVgAABYAw Message-ID: <20407_1289335707_4CD9B39B_20407_70_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499A7AF8C0F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Nathan Vidican , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: Multiple tun loadbalancing question X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:48:38 -0000 Also, may be obvious to point out, but all (3) connections "must" be from t= he same provider. In the lab you could MAYBE get a stable/usable connectio= n from multiple providers (with just ppp or 'x' encap) by splitting the req= uests on the egress side - but it's highly unlikely in the real world. In = most cases the traffic load is asymmetrical and heavily biased towards ingr= ess traffic, so even if you could get it to "work" - it wouldn't provide mu= ch benefit. Just curious, what provider are you using?
"This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system."