Re: [LARTC] two upstreams without nat

["William L. Thomson Jr." <support@obsidian-studios.com>]

On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 04:35, Tomas Bonnedahl wrote:

> the "problem" im having is that i will not do nat on the core router, but on the border routers.

I was faced with the same problem and ended up doing two rounds of
NAT/PAT. The next step to that is to stop doing any NAT on the routers
and let the core router deal with all that. From my experience a
properly designed and dialed in Linux router can perform better than
most other name brand dedicated routers.

Now I am not saying it will be out a $100,000 Cisco router. The
performance should easily be equal to or greater than your existing
routers.

For example when I had my setup in CA my Linux router through put
latency was about half that of my Cisco 827 ADSL router, or either of my
Netopia SDSL routers.
 
> the multipath default route is on the core router.

Linux router, correct.

>  from what i understand, could be totally wrong,
> you have to have nat, at least connection tracking on the core to make the multipath route per
> flow and not per packet.

Correct, sort of. NAT will keep the path in cache, which will allow
packets to keep traveling the same router.

The word flow is much better than connection. You will not get per
connection load balancing. Either way using multipath it will be per
packet load balancing. However with NAT and Julian's patches the NAT
routes are cached which will allow further packets to flow or traverse
the same path.

I have seen others, I think even Julian, said that it is possible to
accomplish without NAT. That has not been my experience. Based on my
experience I would say that NAT is a must.

-- 
Sincerely,
William L. Thomson Jr.
Support Group
Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
3548 Jamestown Ln.
Jacksonville, FL 32223
Phone/Fax  904.260.2445
http://www.obsidian-studios.com

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/