Le Vendredi 27 mai 2005 à 11:27 -0700, Julian Elischer a écrit : > probably this would be better in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moved to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Florent Thoumie wrote:
>
> > Hey list.
> >
> > I'm advocating for FreeBSD for about 6 months now where I'm
> > working and they have the project to build their own router
> > (which will probably be based on WRAP).
> >
> > The good point is that the actual solution is running Linux
> > but it's not highly reliable. The bad point is that they're
> > using channel bonding (on both peers) and they don't want to
> > change one (or at least the system it runs).
> >
> > I've read about ng_fec and ng_onetomany, so I know channel
> > bonding is quite easy (seems so, according to web pages I've
> > found) but I guess FreeBSD and Linux won't work correctly.
> > If that's the case, I wondered if it could be much aspossible to add a
> > new node to "translate" stuff so that both could communicate
> > correctly.
> >
> >
>
>
> how you do it depends entirely on how they are doing the bonding in Linux.
> you do not give any clues as to what modules they are using.
After some investigation, it seems they are using teql on
Linux, which is different from bonding (bonding doesn't seem
to be able to use two different connections types, especially
when these are not ethernet). I'd like to aggregate one ADSL
line with a SDSL line. I'm not sure teql works like
ng_onetomany. Stephen Montgomery-Smith told me by private email
that he knew somebody who successfully used Linux and FreeBSD
together to do bonding. I really need to try it, I'm just
lacking some hardware at the moment.
--
Florent Thoumie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
