[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Alan Jones <junk at alan2 dot com>
 To:  "Mitch (WebCob)" <mitch at webcob 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 12:38:12 -0700

Im not trying to discourage anything, but im not trying to lead someone down
the wrong path telling them that they can load balance two lines either.

First of all, we are both speculating about what they actually want to do...

You assumptions are that they are trying to do outbound load balancing
(connections originating from the inside of the router), which I never said
was not possible or bad, I just said that they were non-standard hacks,
which they are.

Second, I made the assumption that they are not trying to do outbound
balancing because very rarely do people have multiple 10Mb lines when they
are not doing hosting or something of that variety where the connections are
originating from the internet, not the local network. In this case, load
balancing on the router is not useful unless you use BGP. That was my whole

And as for throwing money around, I was trying to be useful and state that
there are free options available. And I would say that most providers which
will sell you a 10Mb link will provide BGP services, theres really no money
involved unless you buy cisco stuff... You just have to have justification
to get an AS number, and a trivial application fee.


On 18/12/03 10:36 AM, "Mitch (WebCob)" <mitch at webcob dot com> wrote:

> 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
> monowall.
> It does:
> - 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
> automatically.
> 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 ;-)
> m/
> -----Original Message-----
> 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!?!?
> 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