On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:53:32PM +0100, Pete Vickers wrote: > Hi, > > Dunno if OBSD & your ISP supports it, but maybe try running multi- > link ppp over the links, to 'bond' them into a single virtual > interface which routing could point at... >
sppp(4) does not support multilink ppp. > Alternatively if you are hosting, presumably most of your trafffic is > orginating 'inbound' from the 'net, and thus your ISP will decide > which physical link to send the packets down - a route-to/reply-to on > your end should just keep the ip 'conversation' on that pipe. > > If most of your traffic is 'outbound' originated, (e.g. just users > surfing all day long), then you could (and this is just an ugly hack > to get you going), still use openbgp to announce your prefixes, but > don't couple FIB with kernel table, and instead have a script > periodically parse a 'bgpctl sh routes...or..suchlike' output, and > then add 25% to each interface via 'route add w.x.y.z/nn via sanmm'. > Obviously tweaks like polling i/f stats to measure individual > utilisation and biase the number of prefixes sent to each, are possible. > Uhm. I think you switched the two. hosting has mostly outbound traffic while end user cause inbound traffic. > Like I said, a hack, but might get you out of a tight spot... > > what about multiple bgp sessions ? > Wont help much unless you start some real evil filtering to balance the 4 t1 links. > /Pete > > > On 30. nov. 2005, at 07.26, andrew fresh wrote: > > >Hijacking this thread, cuZ now I am worried . . . . > > > >>On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:46:56PM -0800, David Ulevitch wrote: > >>>I'd like to hear how people are using OpenOSPFd > > > >I will prbly use OpenOSPFd in the future, but at the moment, my > >question > >is about using OpenBGPd and multiple lines from the same provider. > > > >I am getting 4 T1s from a single provider. Issues with local telco > >"facilities" for T3's and other things are causing me problems with > >getting anything different. > > > >I am going to end up with something like this: > >san0-\ > >san1-\\ all connected to a single provider > >san2-// > >san3-/ > > > >Now, I assume I will have a single BGP session with them. (I have > >very > >little information for lines that are supposed to be installed > >tomorrow > >morning at 9am). > > > >Right now I have a cisco 3640 that has 2 T1's from AT&T and 2 from > >Sprint, it has enough trouble with those which is why I want to > >replace > >it with an OpenBSD box. I am going to have an iBGP session with the > >3640 and an eBGP session with my new provider. > > > >I will be adding 20Mb over ethernet at some point in the fairly > >near future > >(if they can ever get it installed) and will hopefully be getting > >rid of > >the 3640 at that point. > > > >The OpenBSD router will not be doing any NAT, it will be passing > >public IPs. > > > > > >This is what has me worried: > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > >>There is no kernel support for multipath routing. > > > > > >I want to load balancing across those 4 T1s and it is sounding like I > >will not be able to do that and will have to figure out how to get > >these > >4 new lines into my old cisco router. > > > >Unfortunately trunk(4) doesn't work with san interfaces :-( and > >that is > >how it looked possible to do the bonding/inverse muxing that I was > >going > >for. > > > >$ ifconfig trunk0 trunkport san0 trunkport san1 > >ifconfig: SIOCSTRUNKPORT: Protocol not supported > > > >It would be really kewl to use the trunk(4) interface for the BGP > >peer address, since it now does failover, it would be up as long as > >any > >individual lines were up. It would be even kewler if it would be able > >to change the weighting on that interface depending on the number of > >lines in the trunk, but I guess I am dreaming again. > > > >I guess I am looking for something like 'ip load-sharing per- > >packet' in > >cisco terms. But my real question is: How do I get OpenBSD to treat > >those 4 T1s as a single line and share the load across them? > > > >or, how do I get a reasonable approximation from OpenBSD? > > > > > >Also, with those 4 T1s, I want to make sure that in case any of the > >4 go down, > >the BGP session will stay up. With a cisco box, I just bind the > >session > >to a loopback address, add routes for each interface and it will > >choose > >one of the interfaces that is up to get to the destination. How do > >I do > >this with OpenBSD? > > > >Will the BGP session just work when I solve the load balancing issue? > > > >or do I have to do weird things with ifstated(8) (like 16 states > >for the > >4 lines and lots of route add/delete statements)? > > > >or something with 'route-to' in pf? > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=112831360613745&w=2 > > > >This seems to work in my test environment: > ># t1s is an interface group containing all of the links to that > >provider > >pass out on t1s route-to { \ > > (san0 10.35.0.2) \ > > (san1 10.35.1.2) \ > > (san2 10.35.2.2) \ > > (san3 10.35.3.2) \ > >} round-robin keep state > >pass in on san0 reply-to (san0 10.35.0.2) keep state > >pass in on san1 reply-to (san1 10.35.1.2) keep state > >pass in on san2 reply-to (san2 10.35.2.2) keep state > >pass in on san3 reply-to (san3 10.35.3.2) keep state > > > > > >l8rZ, > >-- > >andrew - ICQ# 253198 - JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Proud member: http://www.mad-techies.org > > > >BOFH excuse of the day: telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: > > Connection refused > -- :wq Claudio
