[18958] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: intranet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vince Fuller)
Mon Aug 24 11:22:26 1998
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 7:44:33 PDT
From: Vince Fuller <xxvaf@WR.BBNPLANET.COM>
To: Chris Gibiault <gibiault@linet07.li.net>
Cc: william@pacific.net.ph, nanog@merit.edu, nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:28:04 -0400
> At 05:43 PM 8/18/98 +0800, william@pacific.net.ph wrote:
...
> >Proposed Solution:
> >
> >The 7010 router will be connected to the 2 ISPs. The 7010 will be upgraded
> >to an IOS that supports NAT; all IP address behind the 7010 will be treated
> >as internal IP addresses (to reduce reconfiguration). IP address subnets
> >from both ISPs will be NAT-mapped to internal IP addresses over the 7010,
> >including the DNS server and the mail server.
> >
> >The DNS will be configured to use their DNS as the primary name server.
> >The 2 ISPs' name servers will be used as secondary name servers.
> >
> >The mail server will be configured to have 2 IP address, one actual and one
> >virtual IP address using the network card. The DNS will have an MX 10 and
> >an MX 20, each pointing to one IP addresses for the network card.
> >
> >
> >Is this solution possible? Will it work? Did I forget anything? Any tips?
>
> That is one way to do it .. another and I think a BETTER way would be to
> only use 1 set of ip's ( a set that is "portable" ) and talk bgp with both
> providers. This way you can move the traffic in the most efficient way . If
> you take routes from both of em you may get a better path to site X from
> provider a and a better path to site Y from provider B .
>
> This way if provider a goes down the BGP will move trafic of the link that
> is still "GOOD"
The NAT approach has the obvious advantage of being more "CIDR-friendly"
to the "global Internet". It is probably somewhat more complicated, but if
implemented correctly, it should provide reasonable redundancy and load-
sharing just like a "portable" address space solution.
--Vince
