No, because both routers are reached through the
same L1/L2 medium, so
Quagga can't use link-state to determine
reachability of the next-hop.
You could fix that by getting rid of the switches,
and just having a bunch
of router interfaces facing two Ethernet interfaces
on each server, which
would remove some points of failure, and would be a
good idea if you can
spare the router interfaces...
Do you mean Quagga's OSPF route has higher priority
than static route? or even there is static default
route configured, once Quagga detects link to default
router is down it will replace 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 in
host routing table?
> 2) If each server is configured two default
> router-1 &
> router-2), or each server learn route
> by OSPF ( our border router inject default
> OSPF ); there should be
> two equal cost path to 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 on each
> server, the DNS server should disperse any
> packets onto the two paths, will
> that do harm to DNS service ?
Nope, no problem, particularly so long as the two
routers are iBGP peers,
so they'll both (for the most part) have the same
idea of what selected
I don't understand why should both routers be iBGP
peers. In fact, iBGP does not run on that two
routers; the two routers are only members of OSPF
backbone area who only run OSPF; only border router (
at the edge of our network) runs BGP and enject
default route into OSPF backbone area.
Although all DNS servers are cache server, we have to
open 53/TCP to allow resolver using TCP protocol. For
> (OSPF only) router3--host
if that possible that router3 or router-1 dispers
packets of the same TCP connection to different path?
Is there possibility that a DNS requests are divided
into multiple UDP packets?
> 3) Is there any requirement on BIND to fit to
> multipath routing situation?
Nope. BIND doesn't know what's going on that far
Do I only need to configure BIND to origin request
from administration IP address ( configured on NIC and
different from DNS service address)?