Subject: Re: Two default routes?
To: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
From: Amir Nazary <amir@ionis.com>
List: netbsd-help
Date: 10/22/2001 14:33:58
--------------050304040305000606010405
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I understand this issue - you are quite correct. In many instances, the
ip addresses assigned by service providers are not BGP'able with public
ASN. One can use private ASN(from service provider) on those internal
IP addresses, but that leads to a whole other can of worms. Plus, there
is some value in simple fault tolerance as I've outlined because a lot
of individuals are in the same predicament as I am, and setting up BGP
is not feasible. Also, I think based on my experience, often the
bandwidth failure is not upstream, but the uplink, and hence a simple
failover mechanism is good. Simple Load balancing across two links
should be made available though - I don't think it would be too
difficult to implement?
Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:34:00PM -0700, Amir Nazary wrote:
>
>>Anyone know a way of dynamically utilizing two default routes(gateways
>>to the internet) on a NetBSD box without the use of BGP or some other
>>dynamic routing protocol. What I'm looking to do is load balance (just
>>a simple 50/50 algorithm is fine) and be fault tolerant (use only 1 when
>>the other is down).
>>
>
>Without some dynamic routing protocol you can't be reliably fault tolerant.
>You link may not be down, but the next-hop may be.
>I think for what you want to do here, you really want BGP.
>
>--
>Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
>--
>
--------------050304040305000606010405
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
I understand this issue - you are quite correct. In many instances, the
ip addresses assigned by service providers are not BGP'able with public ASN.
One can use private ASN(from service provider) on those internal IP addresses,
but that leads to a whole other can of worms. Plus, there is some value
in simple fault tolerance as I've outlined because a lot of individuals are
in the same predicament as I am, and setting up BGP is not feasible. Also,
I think based on my experience, often the bandwidth failure is not upstream,
but the uplink, and hence a simple failover mechanism is good. Simple Load
balancing across two links should be made available though - I don't think
it would be too difficult to implement?<br>
<br>
Manuel Bouyer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20011020173025.A940@antioche.eu.org">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:34:00PM -0700, Amir Nazary wrote:<br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Anyone know a way of dynamically utilizing two default routes(gateways <br>to the internet) on a NetBSD box without the use of BGP or some other <br>dynamic routing protocol. What I'm looking to do is load balance (just <br>a simple 50/50 algorithm is fine) and be fault tolerant (use only 1 when <br>the other is down).<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>Without some dynamic routing protocol you can't be reliably fault tolerant.<br>You link may not be down, but the next-hop may be.<br>I think for what you want to do here, you really want BGP.<br><br>--<br>Manuel Bouyer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bouyer@antioche.eu.org"><bouyer@antioche.eu.org></a><br>--<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------050304040305000606010405--