I would imagine the addresses would need to be portable and owned by the
customer. In the event that one of the lines should fail, the addresses
would have to move over to the other ISP's network.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitch (WebCob) [mailto:mitch at webcob dot com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:25 PM
> To: Alan Jones; 'Johan Bergquist'; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Loadbalancing!?!?
> Different experiences - different providers I guess.
> The ones I've spoken with on behalf of a few clients would
> not consider any BGP service unless they were dealing with
> "approved" equipment or software on our end... plus, your
> addresses have to be portable - right? (I'm not a BGP expert)
> As for incoming, I wouldn't call it true "load balancing",
> but with lbdns or something similar, I've seen average loads
> within 20% of even - certainly better than a single feed, and
> more reliable in case of an outtage.
> Besides - the only thing separating a non-standard hack from
> standard procedure in many cases is the level of adoption ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Jones [mailto:junk at alan2 dot com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Mitch (WebCob); 'Johan Bergquist'; m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Loadbalancing!?!?
> 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 point.
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > to
> > everywhere.
> > This is one of those futile issues though... If you want to
> run a true
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> 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