[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Fred Weston" <fred at daytonawan dot com>
 To:  "'Alan'" <junk at alan2 dot com>, "'Johan Bergquist'" <johan dot bergquist at fredab dot se>, <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Loadbalancing!?!?
 Date:  Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:46:13 -0500
I think they're refering to outbound only balancing, which can more or
less be achieved with any two connections.  A company called Nexland
used to make routers that did this, but I think they've since been
bought out and shut down by Symantec.  I think what they're looking for
is the inability for a single user to consume all the available
bandwidth.  In the case of the Nexland routers, a single connection
could only consume the max available bandwidth on one of the
connections.  I think the technical term for that is "per-destination"
vs. "per-packet".  It works similar to Cisco Express Fordwarding.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan [mailto:junk at alan2 dot com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:20 PM
> To: 'Johan Bergquist'; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Loadbalancing!?!?
> 
> 
> Well,
> I would say that the reason this hasn't been implemented is 
> that it is not really useful to most... The only way to 
> achieve true load balancing is to run BGP, which requires you 
> to have an AS number from ARIN. Everything else is just a 
> cheap hack, and dosent work very well.
> 
> There is a very good package which runs BGP called zebra 
(www.zebra.org), which im sure wouldent be hard to get running on
m0n0wall, it is just a matter of writing php pages to administer all the
config files. While I havent heard anything BAD about zebra, I also
havent heard of many people using it in large gateway routers either.

Also, unless both of your lines are from the same provider, and that
provider agrees to implement some non-standard load balancing scheme
with you (otherwise, all your incoming connections will only hit one
link), you arnt going to get anywhere without BGP. And if you implement
BGP, having two links from the same provider is almost stupid, because
they will basically be equal cost routes to everywhere.

This is one of those futile issues though... If you want to run a true
load balanced system, that implies that you actually have that much
traffic to route, which imples that you should have the money to buy a
real router, and should be willing to pay for the reliability...

-Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Bergquist [mailto:johan dot bergquist at fredab dot se] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:35 AM
To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: [m0n0wall] Loadbalancing!?!?

I just put up a linuxbox with iptables,QoS and after I while I thought,
"Wait how cool wouldn't it be with both our 10 Mbps leased lines in one
box". So started to set up loadbalancing between 2 NIC's. The problem is
that I really want to place on m0n0box there instead. And because I suck
when it comes to FreeBSD, probably m0n0BSD too... Well what I'm trying
to say. Is there anyone out there who is willing to implement it?

 

//Johan



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch