Alan - sorry to say but you are missing a huge segment of the market.
Getting an AS number and going BGP (and finding providers who will provide
you the services) is a huge overhead many can't afford.
BUT, with some route monitoring through some simple scripts, and connection
failover by managing default routes - or NAT through multiple external
interfaces, one can easily and inexpensively use two feeds from different
providers. With a little more work, you can make your DNS dynamically
include both external IP's and remove the bad one when a provider fails you.
Have done this NUMEROUS times - but due to various supplier and client
concerns it's always been a custom effort - never anything pretty like
- have the ability to use multiple upstream providers
- have the ability to "load balance", though how good this really is, is
questionable - round robin is the easiest, and it's not always balanced
- provide for continued service failover when a provider goes down
If you work for someone who has the money to throw at BGP and Cisco, fine -
those of us who can't afford it - or would rather have the satisfaction of
an innovative cost effective solution can continue as we have... doing what
some say doesn't work ;-)
From: Alan [mailto:junk at alan2 dot com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:20 PM
To: 'Johan Bergquist'; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Loadbalancing!?!?
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
BGP, which requires you to have an AS number from ARIN. Everything else is
a cheap hack, and dosent work very well.
There is a very good package which runs BGP called zebra (www.zebra.org),
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
gateway routers either.
Also, unless both of your lines are from the same provider, and that
agrees to implement some non-standard load balancing scheme with you
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
provider is almost stupid, because they will basically be equal cost routes
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
which imples that you should have the money to buy a real router, and should
willing to pay for the reliability...
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,
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
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
out there who is willing to implement it?
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