Well, round robin is really not what you want with IP packets. And how are you going to detect that a route is good without a routing protocol?
Baldur On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:40:09PM +1000, Christopher Martin wrote: > There is probably some good reason for this, but there is just one thing > that seems very lacking from FreeBSD, and that's the ability to put in > multiple routes in the table the same destination. > > Now, I am sure a lot of people are saying "You idiot, use OSPF/BGP/RIP if > you want fail over!" But that's not what I want! In the case of just about > every other OS today you can put in as many routes as you like, and it will > use any routes to a destination in a round robin, assuming they have > equivalent, preferable metrics. Sort of poor mans load balancing. This also > prevents protocols like OSPF from entering multiple routes to destination > networks even if they have the same cost. > > People have tried to overcome this in the past with ipfw rules: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-July/093285.html > > The best this solution (more of a hack, really) can do is route sessions > back out the same interface they came in. > > Is there a good reason? If there isn't one, how much work will it take to > fix? I have to admit that it frustrates me enough to at least have a crack > at fixing it myself, even though I am no expert 1337 coder. > > Please pardon my ignorance! > > C Martin > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
