Re: Aggregating channels...

[Ralph Forsythe <rforsythe@centerone.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 02:36 AM 12/4/2001 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
 > I don't think it's possible to span two ISP providers together either, the
 > basis of routing won't allow for that.

It IS possible. Requires both (ar all, could be more) to speak BGP with you,
you'd had full-mesh BGP tables than (that's abou 110k routing table entries).
A nearly equal balancing over the lines isn't that easy even then, though,
and BGP is for sure nothing for home or normal corporate use.

Ahh well, true...  I didn't consider BGP in the picture, since I was 
thinking more on the lines of a true load-balanced/aggregate 
solution.  Plus BGP wouldn't apply here, since *no* ISP will let you run 
that on DSL.  The minimum I've seen allowed is a full T1, and even on a 
fractional DS3 it takes 5 minutes to suck down the table from upstream w/o 
other traffic on the line...  Though I must say OC-12's are quick! :-)

I don't even want to think about what would happen to one's connection on 
something less than a T1 (even a full T1 isn't good) running full-mesh 
tables when it starts flapping...  ugh.

This is why I was thinking more along the lines of a session-based load 
balancing solution, where it would just alternate the outgoing connections 
from one to the other, and a simple table could keep track of who went 
where.  Couldn't help the inbound traffic without something better than DSL 
and static routing, but this application is more for browsing 
anyway.  (NOTE - VPN load balancing works this way since you can't bounce 
the encrypted tunnel from one firewall to another...)

This could be a unique little feature to add to the openbsd routing code, 
if one were so inclined.  Just need a little (well, maybe not) modification 
to allow for a switch like 'route add default 0.0.0.0 x.x.x.x pri', '... 
sec', or something like that.  Kind of like a round-robin DNS setup.  From 
there routed just needs to watch for outbound connections to the default 
and go back and forth between the two.  Thoughts?

  - Ralph
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjwMMAgACgkQQJ8Uia2oQaSTLQCgkBWsr1TqG/GJPKsPD5AnQ5jA
dBMAoNXuo5NqjFH6Pjvq2woT5GeiPf+k
=c7aT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----