er, it still is about internet connections... i only mentioned later that we were planning to host our production servers, which still needs redundant internet connections... you'll understand if i was a bit reluctant about disclosing some of our plans; i didn't want to count our chicks before they're hatched, so to speak...
in any case, i still haven't gone around to actually implementing the redundant connections... i still have time to plan things out thoroughly before i do anything... hey, thanks everyone; having actual people respond to your queries sure beats the heck out of browsing through MSDN anytime! :) joel -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS GIT>GCM d-(+) s: a C++(++++) UL++>++++>$ P+ L+>++++$ E--- W+ N o-- K- w+++$>-- O- M- V- PS !PE Y+@ PGP(-) t++@ 5+@ X-- R tv(--) b++++ DI++(++++) D+ G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y? -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ > Mr. Realubit, this is not what you indicated in your first post. You said > you were concerned with redundant Internet access not services (which I > tried to clarify). You wouldn't need BGP nor gated for that as per my > suggestion. Ian's solution is more cost effective although doing so may > mean 50% of your visitors will get to see the site and the other 50% will > not (i'm shooting at figures here). If that is unacceptable, _ 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]
