Re: bridging

From: Greg Brewer (greg-spam_at_brewer.net)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:42:11 -0500

If working with the ISP is what I have to do then I will do it. My goal
is to look at all possibilities. We have reasons for doing as we do.

On the internet as a whole, if there are multiple routes to a destination
and one route becomes unavailable then the second route will be used. Using
this gives me my "fail-over" capability. All I should have to do is
establish two routes over the two separate physical devices.

Greg

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:ewfIkXMcEHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> This doesn't make any sense at all to me. The Servers don't have anything
to
> do with this.
>
> It is not about IP#s. It is about physical links and what devices have
> control over them.
>
> If the two links come into the same physical device (a router) then that
> physical device can handle the "fail-over" (if it is capable). If two
links
> come into two separate physical devices than "fail over" is not typically
> possible. Routers perform this by using redundant physical links and use
> their own built in abilities combined with routing protocols (RIP, IGRP,
> EIGRP, etc) to perform the "fail over". It is the routing protocols that
> determine a link is no longer operational and causes changes to the
"routing
> tables" in the next routing table update, and the new changes in the
> routing tables cause a different route to be taken to a given destination
if
> a redundant path exists.
>
> This is why the ISP has to be the one to build a solution. It is thier
> lines, it is their equipment (in part), it is their service, and it is
they
> you have to work together with to create a solution.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> "Greg Brewer" <greg-spam@brewer.net> wrote in message
> news:41011d15$0$449$be864849@news.hal-mli.net...
> > Someone pointed out a flaw in my plans. I was figuring on being able to
> use
> > the internal network to go around a T1 failure. Of course, that won't
> work
> > because it is the router that has the IP address; not the server.
> >
> > My new idea is to get a couple of new public IP addresses for the
routers
> > and move the current ones to the servers. But that would mean they
aren't
> > on the same subnet. Hmmm, perhaps a second NIC with a private IP
address.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> > "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
> > news:uI1db8ybEHA.2660@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > "Greg Brewer" <greg-spam@brewer.net> wrote in message
> > > news:40fd8d65$0$447$be864849@news.hal-mli.net...
> > > > time they could check it out. What I want to do is set the thing up
> > that
> > > if
> > > > the primary T1 for either Web Server or Mail Server goes down, it
will
> > go
> > > > around.
> > >
> > > You can not easily do "fail over" with those T1s and still uses them
> like
> > > you currently are at the same time. You can manually switch them, but
> the
> > > way you do that depends on the methods you are currently using now in
> the
> > > "normal" operation.
> > >
> > > I could do ours with one toggle on one device because my Default
Gateway
> > for
> > > all machines is a LAN Router (not a firewall) and the firewall is the
> LAN
> > > Router's DFG. So if a link went down I would simply change the DFG on
> the
> > > LAN Router and would be all done, assuming both links had firewalls
> using
> > > the same subnet.
> > >
> > > You could have the T1s setup for "fail over" themselves but that
> requires
> > > they both be from the same ISP and the ISP would actually be the one
to
> > rig
> > > it up since those lines are more their "territory" than yours. This
> would
> > > change the whole way you are now running your stuff. Most likely the
> ISP
> > > would run both lines into the same Internet Router and would use a
> Router
> > > capable of doing the fail-over between redundant links. From your side
> of
> > > the network it would appear as a single Internet link rather than two
as
> > you
> > > have now. Now if the T1s are from different ISPs then you would have
> very
> > > few if any options.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > > www.wandtv.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Second ISP
    ... make sure that the second ISP router does not have a better default ... All of this can be done with show ip route ... Does this require a routing ... but I would recommend a routing protocol. ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: [Full-disclosure] Packet sniffing help needed
    ... > When you say manipulating the routing tables, ... their table, they would accept a 'more specific' 1.2.3.0/24 route, which ... now-failed router, thus making sure that outages stay limited - so that ... > for one of those machines then arp poison the router ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Routing Problem on OpenServer 5.0.6
    ... > I have one big problem with routing. ... > OSR506A route table: ... server to the network 129.12.130.0. ... router at 192.168.10.254 and need know nothing more about the route it takes. ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: Win2k3 LAN Routing Questions
    ... all you need to do is enable IP routing on the router. ... If there was no other network involved, you simply make the router the ... pretty straight forward as long as you can add a route to your NAT router. ... This is important because this router needs to know where your new subnet is ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • Re: pulling my hair out with this "Static IP" setup
    ... this is what I have - Cable modem / firewall / Lan ... This OS/2 box can ping the DGW on the FW and ISP fine but nothing shows ... route add default 192.168.1.1 ... that the firewall is hosted on a router. ...
    (comp.os.os2.setup.misc)