> "ISO" == ISO writes:
ISO> David Gilbert wrote:
>> No. round-robin will deliver packets out-of-order. TCP will
>> behave very badly with this (at the very least, smart selective-ack
>> hosts will transmit a lot of selective-ack packets --- but dumb
>> non-selective-ack hosts will start as
David Gilbert wrote:
No. round-robin will deliver packets out-of-order. TCP will behave
very badly with this (at the very least, smart selective-ack hosts
will transmit a lot of selective-ack packets --- but dumb
non-selective-ack hosts will start asking for a lot of
retransmission). Other pr
> "Christopher" == Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christopher> Actually, round robin is exactly what I want. And I am
Christopher> not saying I don't use a routing protocol, in fact I do,
Christopher> but I want packets to be able to use two or more diverse
Christopher> paths o
I think policy routing can solve this problem,
you can use ipfw's fwd action to route packets.
this method doesn't work as round robbin, but it can solve your problem.
No routing protocol need.
expamle config:
first router = 10.0.0.1
second router = 10.0.0.2
ipfw add check-state
ipfw add prob
> -Original Message-
> On Behalf Of 'Claudio Jeker'
> Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 12:29 AM
>
> Most implementation do a per source/dst IP address hashing which should
> result in a similar distribution.
>
> OpenOSPFD will learn to cope with multipath routes in the next few weeks
> but
r Gislason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:02 PM
> > To: Christopher Martin
> > Cc: FreeBSD Net Mailing list
> > Subject: Re: Multiple routes to the same destination
> >
> > Well, round robin is really not what you want with IP packet
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:04:25AM +1000, Christopher Martin wrote:
>
> > I doubt that. Doing a per packet round robin over different pathes will
> > kill your tcp performance because of out of order packets.
>
> Noted. That's a very good reason. Maybe if there was a may to round robin on
> a ses
> I doubt that. Doing a per packet round robin over different pathes will
> kill your tcp performance because of out of order packets.
Noted. That's a very good reason. Maybe if there was a may to round robin on
a session basis to mitigate this. Not really going to be an easy fix,
however, so you
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:19:06PM +1000, Christopher Martin wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Baldur Gislason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:02 PM
> > To: Christopher Martin
> > Cc: FreeBSD Net Mailing list
>
> > Actually, round robin is exactly what I want. And I am not saying I
> don't
> > use a routing protocol, in fact I do, but I want packets to be able to
> > use two or more diverse paths of equivalent cost.
>
> You can try to use ng_one2many(4) netgraph node for simple round-robin, if
> this a
Sorry for the mangled reply, html mail is irritating.
From: Nash Nipples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:41 PM
To: Christopher Martin
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Multiple routes to the same destination
1. how did you
CTED]
> Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:02 PM
> To: Christopher Martin
> Cc: FreeBSD Net Mailing list
> Subject: Re: Multiple routes to the same destination
>
> Well, round robin is really not what you want with IP packets.
> And how are you going to detect that a route is
23.06.06 @ 19:19 Christopher Martin wrote:
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?
Actually, round robin is exactly what I want. And I am not saying I don't
use a routing protocol, in fact
> -Original Message-
> From: Baldur Gislason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 10:02 PM
> To: Christopher Martin
> Cc: FreeBSD Net Mailing list
> Subject: Re: Multiple routes to the same destination
>
> Well, round robin is really not what
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
> t
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
