Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:24:33 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no> To: "Kenneth Kabagambe" <kenneth@eahd.or.ug>, "Thomas Dwyer" <tom@dwyers.ca>, <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Multi-Homed Routing Message-ID: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DF30@exchange.wanglobal.net>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
[.snip.] > > this solution would work if you had alot of extra cash > stashed away, just > waiting to be used, which i dont think is the case here. yes > bgp is the > accepted solution but is way too expensive to implement. > Aye > > > However. > > > > You could achieve almost the same effect by using a script to > > check if both gateways are up and if one goes down it automatically > > changes the default route to the working ISP. > > Then automatically adjust your DNS pointers to the new ip > address(es). > > kudos to the venerable ping. Kudos! > > > > > Your public ip address(es) will change, and hence some people wont > > be able to reach your site until their DNS's are updated. Some > > people have caching DNS's that wont expire a record for a long time > > to not generate alot of traffic and wont reach your site at all. > > > > Stan, Cant someone use dyndns? wouldnt it be easier to use? Sten :) Dyndns is one of many similar solutions, of course someone could use dyndns. I do believe that dyndns has the same "flaw" i describe above, but that is a local dns management issue. So yes.help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DF30>