In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bill, > > Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > > I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think > > multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping > > to accomplish. I'm guessing your looking for some sort of redundancy, > > in which case something like CARP or RIP is liable to be the correct > > solution. > > I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was > running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that > were corresponding to two different IPs, going via two different > providers. When the first provider's link goes down, the second > provider is still alive, and when both providers are alive, the > traffic is balanced via DNS round-robin alias. Do you see some > better way to do it via CARP, RIP, something different? I am still > interested in other possibilities.
The canonical way to do this is with BGP. I can be done with CARP if both providers support it and are willing to work together. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
