On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 04:28, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > > Sure. When I said "packet count" before I was thinking about something > along the lines of real traffic balancing, that is, the router somehow > remembering how many packets it sent to each route and choosing the > less used one. That would be one step closer to true load balancing but I do not thing would work for the other end the client. Instead it just splits requests/lookups and does not completely load balance traffic or packets. It is very easy to have uneven loads. For this one day I will look into QoS when the time is right, hoping it may be able to help even out the load? At least from the inside. Once again from the outside load balancing is done via DNS. > > It would be getting responses from an IP it was not expecting response > > from. I would imagine each side to send redirects, and all sorts of > > problems. Like it receiving every other packet and dropping the packets > > in between. > > And breaking stateful firewalls. Yep > > If during a file transfer the route cache is flushed, there is the > > possibility of the rest of the packets going out a different interface. > > Uh oh... It shouldn't be that simple, what about that 60s timeout for > the cache? It's very likely to occur during a file transfer. Well that's more a worse case scenario like manually flushing the cache. I believe the cache gc algorithm takes in consideration routes that are currently in use. So lookups do not occur during a transfer? I have not really seen this to be a big problem. Although I do not have any large files being downloaded, and if I did it could cause problems there. But so far I have not had any problems along those lines. > > Neither does it perfectly or with intelligent algorithms. Neither allow > > you to use all paths for a single transfer. > > Only things like MPPP I guess, for example, or channel bonding, or TQL. Yes, but I believe each of those requires special configurations on both ends, client and ISP. > > So if you have two 1.5 mbs connection, you do not end up with a 3.0 mbs > > line. You do have one internal gateway for both, and if one goes down > > the other can be used. So you do have redundancy, and both lines can be > > used to serve difference requests to different places. > > So it's more like redundancy/HA with a best effort towards balancing. Yes, or in other terms. My need was a single gateway for my servers although I have two ISPs. The amount of load balancing you get it about the same as the amount of redundancy. You get a partial solution to both, but not a complete solution. -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios Inc. 439 Amber Way Petaluma, Ca. 94952 Phone 707.766.9509 Fax 707.766.8989 http://www.obsidian-studios.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
