On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:23:41PM +0800, Ian C. Sison wrote:
> > truly why is there a need to get a network appliance when the stock linux
> > kernel has advanced routing, ECM, multiple device load balancing, CBQ
> > packet shaping, and ipchains firewalling...all running on any common PC,
> > and even on a floppy!
>
> There is no free software right now that does what the Linkproof does -
> completely.
>
> For outbound connections, it uses ping tests to figure out which ISP is
> closer to the destination, and uses that ISP's IP block as the NAT destination.
> Thus, the return path from the web server/etcetera would pass through the
> "right" path.
>
> Of course, a kernel programmer can implement such dynamic NAT decisions, or
> maybe build some sort of table. The ping tests - or tcp port 80 connect tests
> for better indication of congestion - are easier, something like squid's ICMP
> tests I suppose.
But won't this increase overall latency - testing for congestion and
making it the basis of a routing decision? A lot of sites block ICMP
nowadays, and it may actually fool such devices into thinking that the
site is down... And doing a tcp port 80 probe ? Eh di kunin mo na lang
yung buong page, nag connect ka na rin lang di ba?
Do you really think that the extra features of this appliance is worth
the cost?
So far, the only net appliance i think is worth the megabucks are the
foundry L4 switches, and even that can be duplicated in functionality on a
lesser scale by the linux virtual server.
Point being, unless your requirements are "wire-speed" networking
functionality with special feature requirements, you don't need this, or
a cisco, or a foundry, and definitely not one of those 'cache engines'..
\8)
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
