Consumer-grade dual-homed connectivity options?

Dorn Hetzel dhetzel at gmail.com
Wed Dec 30 13:02:15 CST 2009


I use a T1/26xx for primary and a sprint datacard in a little NAT router for
secondary.  The two boxes sit on the same LAN but provide different gateway
IP addresses.  The sprint router does the DHCP, so things that ask for DHCP
wind up using that as the primary.  Some boxes use the 26xx as default
gateway with static IP's outside the DHCP range.  A smart enough box could
choose paths per conversation by playing with the next hop.  If that active
path for a box fails I can just change it's default gateway to switch to the
other service.  I have a routable C I use for the LAN, the sprint
connections just NAT's it anyway, the other connection is firewalled but not
NAT'd.  Seems to work ok for me.  Could be made fancier.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Brandon Galbraith <
brandon.galbraith at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Ken Chase <math at sizone.org> wrote:
>
> > 2x DSL not so backhoe-resistant.
> >
> > I like mixing cable with dsl. Tasty disparate paths (modulo garden shears
> > applied to the single ingres point to your basement) if not technologies,
> > orgs
> > and methodologies. Or radio + dsl, or pigeon + mule, take your pick.
> >
>
> *snip*
>
> I'm using cable and wimax in the Chicago suburbs with a dual-wan router.
> Works well, would recommend to others, and so forth.
>
>
>
> > /kc
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:12:59AM -0500, Tim Sanderson's said:
> >  >Do you control or have access to the provider side-the PPPoE server-and
> > would both PPPoE connections hit the same PPPoE server at the provider?
> If
> > so, I recommend setting up a PPP multilink with both DSL lines. The DSL
> > provider would have to support that capability. I also recommend
> something
> > like a Cisco 2691 router with two WIC-1ADSL cards. I have used this
> hardware
> > for a 2xDSL multilink to my own home and it worked well.
> >  >
> >  >--
> >  >Tim
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >-----Original Message-----
> >  >From: Paul Bennett [mailto:paul.w.bennett at gmail.com]
> >  >Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 10:50 AM
> >  >To: nanog at nanog.org
> >  >Subject: Consumer-grade dual-homed connectivity options?
> >  >
> >  >Not sure whether this is an appropriate place to post this, but I
> thought
> >  >I'd give it a shot, since you're all knowledgeable folks with regard to
> >  >networking things...
> >  >
> >  >At home, I currently run two DSL lines. Right now, we just have two
> >  >separate LANs, one connected to each line, with my wife's devices
> > attached
> >  >to one, and my devices attached to the other. For a while now, I've
> been
> >  >thinking about setting up a load-balancing routing solution to give
> both
> >  >of us access to both lines.
> >  >
> >  >I have the opportunity to acquire a refurbed Cisco Catalyst 2960 at a
> >  >ridiculously low price. I also have access to a (nominally) spare
> >  >quad-core 64-bit PC with 8GB of RAM. I say "nominally" because I'm
> >  >thinking about setting it up as a media center / gaming rig connected
> to
> >  >the TV in the den. That's largely beside the point, but it bears
> pointing
> >  >out that keeping the PC available for my other needs would be a good
> > thing.
> >  >
> >  >So.
> >  >
> >  >Is it going to be a more-effective solution to drop a few bucks on the
> >  >2960 and go through the hassle of learning how to set it up (and then
> >  >setting it up), or would I be better off putting a secured Linux distro
> >  >(e.g. gentoo-hardened, or something) on the semi-spare PC and running
> the
> >  >load-balancing via iproute2 and friends?
> >  >
> >  >Either way, I'm looking at a learning curve, and a good amount of time
> >  >fannying around getting the damn thing working -- there's a good chance
> >  >I'd spend almost as much cash on the PC-based solution getting
> >  >good-quality network cards, and maybe fast HDD tech (though it seems
> like
> >  >RAM and cores would be more important than disk IO).
> >  >
> >  >What are your opinions?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >--
> >  >Paul
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE
> > INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION
> > THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
> > APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient,
> > or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
> > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
> > message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or
> > copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> > message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or
> > telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Chase - ken at heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA
> > Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151
> > Front St. W.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Brandon Galbraith
> Mobile: 630.400.6992
> FNAL: 630.840.2141
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list