[121912] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Default route with object tracking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ivan Pepelnjak)
Mon Feb 1 15:04:57 2010
From: "Ivan Pepelnjak" <ip@ioshints.info>
To: "'Andrey Gordon'" <andrey.gordon@gmail.com>,
"'Nanog'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <90ccfc91002010713n18f00974p8d237054c4cf52de@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:03:58 +0100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
To be absolutely safe, choose 4-5 of the ideas, track all of them and =
use a composite track object to combine them :)
You can find a lot more details (including the oscillating routing =
problem) here:
http://www.nil.com/ipcorner/SmallSiteMultiHoming/
http://wiki.nil.com/Small_site_multihoming
Good luck!
Ivan Pepelnjak
blog.ioshints.info / www.ioshints.info
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrey Gordon [mailto:andrey.gordon@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:14 PM
> To: Nanog
> Subject: Default route with object tracking
>=20
> Hi list.
>=20
> I'd like to setup my default routes to the Interwebz to be conditional =
on
> reachability of something on the Interwebz. I got two different ISPs =
(no
> BGP). I'm trying to figure out what would be a reliable object to =
track?
> Meaning, it's probably not reasonable to track my ISPs default =
gateway,
> since it does not protect me from someone on the ISP side screwing up. =
I'm
> thinking of tracking something like google.com, but am not sure if =
after I
> resolve google.com for the first time, it will be simply tracking an
> arbitrary server (or some load balancer).
>=20
> I wanted to see what experienced folks think is a reliable tracking
> target.
> Any comments are much appreciated.
>=20
> thank you,
>=20
>=20
> -----
> Andrey Gordon [andrey.gordon@gmail.com]
