From: keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 13:23:45 GMT-3
On Wed, 12 June 2002, ccielab@groupstudy.com wrote
>
> Hi,
>
> You have tried to post to GroupStudy.com's CCIELab
mailing list. Because the
> server does not recognize you as a confirmed poster,
you will be required to
> authenticate that you are using a valid e-mail
address and are not a
> spammer.
>
> PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE AGAIN! BY
CONFIRMING THIS EMAIL
> YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE (WHICH IS NOW QUEUED IN THE
SERVER) WILL BE POSTED.
>
> By confirming this e-mail you certify that you
understand the following:
>
> 1. The message does NOT break Cisco's Non-Disclosure
requirements.
>
> 2. The message is NOT designed to advertise a
commercial product.
>
> 3. All postings become property of GroupStudy.com
>
> 4. You have searched the archives prior to posting.
>
> 5. The message is NOT inflammatory.
>
> 6. The message is NOT a test message.
>
> To confirm, simply reply to this message. No editing
is necessary. Once
> confirmed, you will be able to post without
additional confirmations.
>
>
> Welcome to GroupStudy.com!
>
>
> ------ORIGINAL MESSAGE---------
>
> From keith@isconduit.net Wed Jun 12 12:21:33 2002
> Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h007.c001.snv.cp.net
[209.228.32.121])
> by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA19772
> GroupStudy Mailer; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:21:33 -0400
> From: keith@isconduit.net
> Received: (cpmta 14053 invoked from network); 12 Jun
2002 09:21:42 -0700
> Received: from 209.228.32.126 (HELO
mail.isconduit.net.criticalpath.net)
> by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.121) with
SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 09:21:42 -0700
> X-Sent: 12 Jun 2002 16:21:42 GMT
> Received: from [206.229.20.33] by mail.isconduit.net
with HTTP;
> Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: ksteller@midwave.com
> Subject: Dual homed to a single ISP on separate nodes
> X-Sent-From: keith@isconduit.net
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.0.10-12
> Sender: keith@isconduit.net
> Message-Id:
<20020612092141.8426.h012.c001.wm@mail.isconduit.net.criticalpath.net>
>
> Hello-
>
> We have a client that is going to a dual homed
> (separate border routers) connection to the same ISP
> via separate peering nodes. I am wondering if it makes
> sense to configure the necessary internal routing and
> take a default from both nodes, or to take
partial/full
> routes. Anyone have any feedback regarding pros/cons.
> We would like to get them configured to load balance
> the connections, but see some issues with that config
> and the Checkpoint FW's behind the routers.
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:31 GMT-3