On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 16:12 -0500, Scot L. Harris wrote: > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 15:57, Douglas Frank wrote: > > OK then, I'll take that as a gentle dope slap and del one of them, > > thanks. > > > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 15:53 -0500, Scot L. Harris wrote: > > > I'm not even sure you are sending packets out to both devices and if you > > > are you could end up with other problems if one path ends up being > > > slower than the other. The least problem is doubling the traffic. > > > Worst problem is confusing your applications if they happen to get the > > > same packets twice and are not able to sort it out. > > Don't take it that way. :) I said I'm not sure about it. Would be > interesting run ethereal to see if your packets are sent to just one > router or if you send packets to both routers. I'm guessing you will > most likely send a single packet to just one router. If that router > goes down there is no way for your system to know that and your packets > will just get dropped. If it does send the same packet to both routers > like I said before you have just doubled your bandwidth usage between > those devices. > > To do what I think you want, provide redundancy on your LAN for the > router, you really need to look at HSSP or VRRP setup between the two > routers. In a past life I have setup both and it works very well. > > -- > > Response brought to you by AutoReponder 0.1 > a product of Magic-8-ball productions. > (version 0.2 will feature correct answers!) > > Douglas, If you are strictly looking for redundancy then what you have done should work. If you want to specify a preferred router then take a look at the metric option to the route command. Lower numbers are more preferred. Also, if you can set up HSRP (Cisco-ish) of VRRP (IETF-ish) on the two routers then you would only have one default router configured on each host and, the routers, through MAC address and IP address manipulation will take care of every thing else (IIRC). Bob... Bob...
