>This is a campus connection.. They only have 10BT for the dorms (2 ports
>for a 2 person room), and it's actually going to a fiber ring around
>campus..
Any admin worth their salt would see something wrong when someone is
hogging 20MB of a 100Mb/s link! I would think they would axe your
connection post haste! What are you doing in your dorm room that
needs so much traffic? MP3 server or something? Also.. very FEW
OSes can support full throughput of a 100Mb/s card. Heheh.. NT
can only support ~40Mb/s! Don't worry.. I think Linux can support
100Mb/s on a fast box.
>That's a spiffy idea, but we don't have access on the switch to manage it,
>and the network boys are a little stuffy.
Well.. many switches out there auto-detect full duplex. You might
try to find someone that has a new 10BaseT or 100BaseT card and
see if they are running in full duplex mode. Again.. this ASSUMES
that each user gets their own SWITCH port. A upstream hub port will
not do.
>>Sure.. put different IP addresses on each NIC and change DNS to
>>let WWW traffic to goto one NIC and sendmail to the other.
>
>I don't quite understand.. I get the part about each NIC having it's own
>address, but how exactly do you route certain services over certain
>interfaces?
http: www.abc.com --> 10.0.100.100
mp3: mp3.abc.com (CNAME to www) --> 10.0.100.100
--
ftp: ftp.abc.com --> 10.0.200.200
mail: mail.abc.com (CNAME to ftp) --> (set via the MX record)
etc.. btw.. a CNAME is basically a DNS alias.
>I'm surprised there isn't a neat little package for this sort of thing. It
>seems relatively simple in concept, as long as you don't care what IP
>address everything is coming from.. You just flip-flop between NICs as
>connections go out, and *bamf*, you have load balancing.
Most Internet traffic is based on CONNECTIONS. They establish
direct connections with a given MAC address. Remember:
Fully qualified domain names are read by humans
IP addresses are read by routers
Ethernet MAC addresses are read my PCs
(see the OSI model for more details)
There *are* systems out there that load balance over modems or
ethernet connections but they ONLY work for short connected traffic
like HTTP, etc. Long term traffic like FTPs can only use one
connection at a time.
>It wouldn't even have to be limited to ethernet, in the same way as
>dual-ppp connections are limited. Any interface that can be masqued over
>should be able to balance over. You could even get crazy with say, a 100BT
>connection, a 10BT connection, and a dialup. You weight each interface
>according to it's speed, and throw that into the algoritm.
You can do this.. its called EQL for Linux or MultiLink-PPP. The problem
is, those are protocols. So, the remote equipment has to support the
protocol too. EQL is Linux.. EtherChannel is Cisco.. etc. All proprietary.
MultiLink-PPP is a possibility but again.. you need a remote Multilink-PPP
server on the other end and that upstream hub/switch will NOT support
either.
Sorry mon..
--David
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| David A. Ranch - Linux/Networking/PC hardware [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
!---- ----!
`----- For more detailed info, see http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch -----'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
