>connection post haste! What are you doing in your dorm room that
>needs so much traffic? MP3 server or something? Also.. very FEW
Nah, no mp3 server, but we're going to shove lots of people into a dorm,
and there's not going to be enough switch ports. We figured that while the
masqing was already going to happen, we might as well try to take advantage
of the two switch ports. A couple of the guys also work in the Science
Library on Campus, and were planning on doing some heavy-duty file
transfers from dorm->work and back again. Then of course, there is the
occasional shared mp3 directory, networked games of TA and Quake[I,II], X
connections to the labs (once we figure out how to get X through the masq)
and of naturally, the sheer coolness of having a dual-10BT connection to
the rest of the campus.
>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.
We'll give this a try.
>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)
I think I get what you're saying.. But wouldn't that require access to the
campus DNS?
>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.
I guess I just don't understand this.. using one connection at a time is
fine. I don't want to have one ftp session going over two cards, but if I
need to start up 4 or 5 at a time, why not have 2 on one card and 2 on
another? Since it's based on connections, just keep the connection on the
originating card until it dies. Am I missing the point?
>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.
Ok, so multi-link over ethernet is a no-go unless the switch (or is it the
router?) at the other end can do EQL.
Thanks for your help.. feel free to stop explaining if I ask too many
questions =)
--Doug Clements
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
