В Thu, 23.05.2002, в 11:17, Terry Lambert написал:
> "Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" wrote:
> > ÷ Wed, 22.05.2002, × 23:21, Mattias Pantzare ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> > > Terry, FreeBSD has no support for BGP. To get BGP support you install a
> > > router daemon. That inserts routes in the routing table in the kerne
"Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" wrote:
> ÷ Wed, 22.05.2002, × 23:21, Mattias Pantzare ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> > Terry, FreeBSD has no support for BGP. To get BGP support you install a
> > router daemon. That inserts routes in the routing table in the kernel. The
> > kernel will do all packet forwarding. The kernel
÷ Wed, 22.05.2002, × 23:21, Mattias Pantzare ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> Terry, FreeBSD has no support for BGP. To get BGP support you install a
> router daemon. That inserts routes in the routing table in the kernel. The
> kernel will do all packet forwarding. The kernel has to support two or
> more routes to
Terry, FreeBSD has no support for BGP. To get BGP support you install a
router daemon. That inserts routes in the routing table in the kernel. The
kernel will do all packet forwarding. The kernel has to support two or
more routes to the same destination if you are going to do BGP (or OSPF)
equ
"Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" wrote:
> > Without the cooperation of the tother end, you don't have
> > control of the symmetry of the return route. So maybe
> > your packets are round-robin'ed out interfaces, but they
> > all come back through the same interface, because you have
> > no control of
÷ Wed, 22.05.2002, × 00:52, Terry Lambert ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> "Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" wrote:
> > > Multipath routing is not as useful as you imply. Neither is
> > > round-robin'ing between a set of paths. It assumes that the
> > > pool retention time on the router is longer than the drain time
> > >
Oleg Chebotarev wrote:
> The thing is that it does not work with 4.3 release.
> I tried it a few times and I saw a lot of error during patching.
> Does anyone knows how to get a 4.3 stable for a given date?
"man cvs"
You can checkout a source tree of a given date.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send
Oleg Chebotarev wrote:
> The mpath diff is against 4.3 stable on given date.
> I was not even able to patch 4.3 release.
It is absolutely trivial to bring the patch up to date against
-stable. Bringing patches up to date against -current is a
useless exercise (IMO), unless they will be integrate
"Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" wrote:
> > Multipath routing is not as useful as you imply. Neither is
> > round-robin'ing between a set of paths. It assumes that the
> > pool retention time on the router is longer than the drain time
> > for a single path, such that you end up with a higher aggrega
> BGP is a better idea (of course).
>
> You might also consider using BGP.
>
> And have I mentioned BGP? 8-) 8-).
Whether to use BGP/OSPF is orthogonal to multipath use. Both
OSPF and BGP allow you to install multiple next hops. Adding
multipath support requires, at a minimum, changing struc
The thing is that it does not work with 4.3 release.
I tried it a few times and I saw a lot of error during patching.
Does anyone knows how to get a 4.3 stable for a given date?
--- "Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ÷ Tue, 21.05.2002, × 15:54, Oleg Chebotarev ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> > T
÷ Tue, 21.05.2002, × 15:54, Oleg Chebotarev ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> The mpath diff is against 4.3 stable on given date.
> I was not even able to patch 4.3 release.
> OSPF and BGP does not came into play here yet,
> because to assign the same/different costs to different routes to the
> same destination I need
The mpath diff is against 4.3 stable on given date.
I was not even able to patch 4.3 release.
OSPF and BGP does not came into play here yet,
because to assign the same/different costs to different routes to the
same destination I need to have routing table with 2 (or more) routes
to the same desti
÷ Tue, 21.05.2002, × 13:13, Terry Lambert ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> > OSPF have equal cost multupath, An BGP too (If I not mistaken)
> > so lack of kernel support of more then one route for one destination
> > is not good.
> >
> > Zebra on Linux can do OSPF equal cost multipath but on FreeBSD cant.
>
> Sounds
"Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" wrote:
> There are some algoritms, for example round-robin
> It is not a problem if you assign two equal routes you know what you
> want.
>
> If you have two links to one provider and want to balance outgoing
> traffic it is much better to do it with to similar routes.
Howdy,
> -Original Message-
> From: Vladimir B. Grebenschikov
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2002 17:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Oleg Chebotarev; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: multi default routes in freebsd !?
>
> [snip]
>
> Times ago there was hack f
÷ Tue, 21.05.2002, × 09:37, Terry Lambert ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> Oleg Chebotarev wrote:
> > Does anyone know when FreeBSD will
> > support multiple default routes
> > or multiple routes to the same network thru different interfaces?
>
> I have two default routes. One is IP address "A". The other is
> IP ad
Oleg Chebotarev wrote:
> Does anyone know when FreeBSD will
> support multiple default routes
> or multiple routes to the same network thru different interfaces?
I have two default routes. One is IP address "A". The other is
IP address "B".
To which IP address do I forward a random packet?
Sh
18 matches
Mail list logo
