Cheers Phillip,

its definitly a weird one.

what say if its possible to create transperent bridge using both adsl
connections in the cisco 1721 , thus create a Bridged DMZ

then on the edge of the bridged DMZ have linuxbox doing the NAT/firewalling,

eg.

 localnetworks --- linix/nat/firewall --- DMZ --- csico 1721 ----
     -------------- ISPgateway
                                                                            
               ----- jetstream

assuming both links can use the same gateway for the linux router as cisco
would be transperent. But can cisco 827 be transperent Bridge and still be
configured for "on demand" circuit ???

interestig stuff, I wonder if the frim in questions' isp has a solution for
this.

regards,

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip D'Ath" <pid@ifm.net.nz>
To: <julian.white@dvs.co.nz>
Cc: <adsl@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: load balancing and redundantcy

> This sounds difficult, but may be achievable using a Cisco 1721.
>
> One of the big challenges would be the correct handling of NAT.
> For example, lets say you log into an SSL site via one interface
> using its IP address. If that interface becomes saturated, you can't
> simply start sending traffic out the other interface, because it will be
> using a different IP address, and break the SSL session.
>
> Perhaps a compromise might be two put all the big time
> insensitive traffic down one link (say SMTP, POP3, perhaps FTP), and put
> more time sensitive protocols (where people will notice a delay) down
> the other faster link.
> A proxy server could help reduce the usage as well.
>
> Another option might be to put two ADSL cards into a 1721.
> Create a default route via both, making one less attractive. Then
> enable variance.
> The effect of this is you should be able to establish a ratio of
> traffic to go via the two interfaces. For example, one interface could
> take 25% of the offered load, and the other interface 75% of the load.
> This approach is likely to be fraught with danger because of the
> NAT issue again.
>
>
> Actually, I just had an interesting thought. If you configured
> the second JetStream circuit as an "on demand" circuit, then you could
> set it to only bring the circuit up when a defined load threshold had
> been exceeded.
> Once again, your likely to have NAT issues.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-adsl@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-adsl@unixathome.org] On
> Behalf Of Julian White
> Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2002 4:51 p.m.
> To: adsl@lists.unixathome.org
> Subject: load balancing and redundantcy
>
>
>
> Heya,
>
> I am wondering if anyone has come accoss this scenario,
>
> a firm has 2 adsl internet connections,
>
> one is flat-rate 256
> one is standard jetstream plan
>
> the scenario is to have all traffic use the 256k link until it is
> saturated,
> then when this happens route data to the jetstream link.
>
> I know it is possible to use linux iproute2 to route 2 upstream links
> going
> to providers, but this is more redundantcy situation. My assumption is a
> hardware appliance maybe needed like:
>
> --localnetworks --- router/firewall ------- hardware applicance --------
> 256
> link ->
>
>
> --------- 8mb jetstream link ->
>
> any suggestions, products etc. are welcomed,
>
> cheers,
>
> julian
>
>
>
> --
> This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
> see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
> and various documents.
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org
> with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
>
>
>

-- 
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list. 
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ, 
and various documents. 
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org 
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message