From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECdwz-0000Py-VG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:57:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86DqQam028939; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:52:26 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86DkMgP030069 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:46:23 GMT Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECdpV-0003eK-Jt for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:49:41 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ECdnd-0000xu-82 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:47:45 +0200 Received: from www.buffer.net ([24.73.161.102]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:47:45 +0200 Received: from wireless by www.buffer.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:47:45 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo router redundancy via Ucarp? Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <431BC017.8050306@badapple.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 24.73.161.102 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050810) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: c177a5de-6fec-4c43-8a08-b608d8122252 X-Archives-Hash: 3c63bd52158ca6e30bc9ad33ff217f9b kashani badapple.net> writes: > Here's the rub, load balancing outbound traffic is easy. Turn on > advanced routing in your kernel, recompile, reboot, add your two default > gateways and you're now using both connections. IIRC Linux does per > connection load sharing, not per packet so a single TCP stream can not > use the aggregate connection speed of both pipes. Well, I have not been active is complex routing solutions, lately, hence the inquiry as to available multi-homed solutions circa BGP. > However load balancing incoming traffic is hard even with BGP. I'd be > very surprised if either of your ISP's let you run BGP with them other > than announcing a default 0.0.0.0/0 route to you via a private AS > number. Assuming you even get that far I'm positive that their filters > are going to swallow any route announcement specific enough to modify > your traffic. Without BGP you have no redundancy for incoming traffic. > Here's an example. So BGP-4 is still the only solution to multi-homed networks.....? Here's one treatise on the subject: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nagami-mip6-nemo -multihome-fixed-network-03.txt Thanks for your input. James -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list