[ILUG] Routing.

[Thomas Bridge]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 16:30 16/01/2002 +0000, Mark Kilmartin wrote:
>This looks like the best solution the the problem all around.
>
>But as I said I now have ISP1 routing packets with an ISP2 source.
>
>And I don;t need to have load balancing on them.

Thatss all very well, but that solution isn't resilient in a failure of the 
ISP2 connection.   Although ISP1 will let you send packets with an ISP2 
source interface, if the ISP2 link goes down you've no way to get the 
packets with a destination address of ISP2.

I'm not sure about NAT on the Cisco routers - I mentioned it to Paul in an 
email a couple of days ago, but I think there are design issues around this.

T.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPEWyPL6WYZbx1eG3EQKlqQCg3UEnrHIWgxXqfdc6ao8AtwAAuRcAniOv
sPxoynH9fROaPJrhv//qrv5e
=gFVX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----