Moving to private only. >> Is it even possible in PF? > > I have no idea ;-)
I don't think it is. > >> Are you talking about a webserver on your end and IP1 meaning an user >> from the internet? Or the other way around? > > No sorry the other way around. IP1 is one of our lines, and by web > server I mean any webserver on the internet. > >> And are you using NAT? > > Yes. I was hoping to implement a round-robin NAT as described by another > reply to my original post. Providing it all works as I would like it to. Aha! Then you should instead either prefer to use PF or IPFW fwd with keep-state. What you need is to make sure all traffic from one session leaves the right pipe. I mentioned that NAT breaks packet perfect forwarding. > >> That can be accomplished if you want. >> What do you prefer? "packet perfect" forwarding for maximum throughput >> on your uploads or stream friendly balancing - and perhaps better >> overall performance - for many users? > > Better overall performance for end users. There is a network of 30 > workstations, all in active use about 16hrs of each day. I'd say PF or IPFW with fwd + keepstate will be the way you want to go. Not the way i initially mentioned. > >> Have you ever considered multilink ppp? > > multilink ppp? hmm that is definately something I may have to look into. > Infact from memory of waht I know about it, it could possibly be exactly > what I am looking for. > Do you have much experience with multilink ppp that you could pass on > before I jump in blindfolded and bring my whole network down? ;-) Not really. -- Sten Daniel Sørsdal
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
