Kirby C. Bohling said: > I'm guessing it has two interfaces. Hence the sentence: > >> > Yes, but not in sense that traffic comes in one interface and goes >> out another The fact that it does NOT come in one interface and go out another implies to me that there's only one interface. If there's two interfaces, it goes in one and out another.. which is what he says it's NOT doing :P > The one interface connects to the local lan. The other connects to a > network that can route to all of your upstream providers. I'm not familiar with WAN routing... is it common to have a network that can be connected to with one physical interface, that routes to many different providers? > It's no harder > to load balance 2 way then 4 way, but a lot of network equipment makers > would charge you twice as much because there are twice as many > interfaces (or would charge you a significant amount more to have 4 > interfaces). I could see that.. but I was under the impression that on any network where you'd have routes to different providers that you want to load balance, you'd need a different physical interface to each network that the route was on. > I'm guessing this is a pretty smart option assuming the aggregate > traffic leaving you network is less then 100Mbit/s. If it's more then > 100Mbit/s, you can afford better equipment. True :P
