DI-LB604 load balancing router and /etc/resolv.conf

[max bianco]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Frank Cox <theatre at sasktel.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:55:18 +0100
>  Chris G <cl at isbd.net> wrote:
>
>  > I couldn't get load balancing to work initially and asked for help
>  > from Draytek support, they advised that I needed to specify the
>  > nameservers in the router.  What they suggested was to put two
>  > nameservers into the router, using your notation, nameserver 1.1.1.1 and
>  > nameserver 3.3.3.3.  Then, in addition, I had to set another option
>  > that forced all traffic to 1.1.1.1 through WAN1 and all traffic to
>  > 3.3.3.3 through WAN2.  It now works and I get load balancing between
>  > the two ADSL connections.
>
>  After further experimenting, I too have discovered that this seems to work
>  best.  In the "protocol and port binding" configuration screen, I directed UDP
>  and TCP port 53 to WAN1 for 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, and WAN2 for 3.3.3.3 and
>  4.4.4.4
>
>  Now this outfit rattles right along.  Before I did the above step (just an hour
>  or so ago) when you went to a new web page you had to wait a second before it
>  started to load.  Now, that momentary wait seems to be gone.  Click - boom.
>  Here's your web page.  I think I was getting some kind of dns timeouts before
>  if I sent a dns request to a nameserver from the wrong IP address.  DNS
>  requests, too, seem to alternate.
>
>  I logged into my webserver and watched the log file while I loaded my website
>  and found that things are indeed doing what they should.  Every alternate
>  graphic (approximately) was downloaded by each IP address.  graphic 1 by address
>  1, graphic 2 by address 2, graphic 3 by address 1 again, and so on.
>
>  Now I can see that things are definitely going faster than they were when I was
>  using just one Internet connection.  In fact, it's damned impressive.
>
>
>  > I doubt it matters much what you put in /etc/resolv.conf after the
>  > first two nameservers, if it's using the third something is probably
>  > rather amiss anyway.
>
>  You're probably right.  My current resolv.conf seems to be doing the job -- at
>  least, it's running a damn sight faster than it ever has before.  If this is
>  broken, then I'd like to break a few more.
>
>
>  > In fact I think the best way is probably to get the router to act as
>  > your local nameserver (mine can do that though I haven't actually
>  > tried to set it up this way yet).  Then all PCs on the LAN just have
>  > the router's IP as their name server and you can choose what
>  > nameservers everyone uses by changing what the router uses.
>
>  As far as I can tell, this router doesn't do that.  At least, I haven't
>  discovered anything that suggests that it can, so far.  There are a ton of
>  configuration screens here, though, so I could easily have missed it.
>
>  I wonder if there would be any benefit to running a caching nameserver on this
>  computer.  What's the current "best way" to get one of those running on Fedora
>  8?  That's another thing that I've never tried and perhaps it's worth giving
>  that a shot too while I'm at it.
>
>  Ultimately, if any of you folks reading this want to give your Internet access
>  a real kick in the rear end, get two connections and a load balancing router.
>  You don't know what you're missing until you've tried this stunt out.
>
>
You've already got me thinking but, I want it with wireless, though i
am not sure until I try. I wouldn't need to isp's though because I am
not even getting the max speed out of one ISP with a  wireless
connection. I can have to NIC's in a box, can I have two wireless
cards with separate ip's pulling down the info so i could effectively
double my wireless connection speed? It seems plausible on the surface
anyway.

Max