Sharing ISPs

I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for emergencies,
FWIW.)

I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server, but
to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic to
a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.

Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this option
for now...

Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.

Thanks!

rg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths.
> The server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some
> guidance on how to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have
> dialup for emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given
> server, but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections
> approaches saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all
> traffic should go through the other one. Ideally, if one connection
> saturates with traffic to a single server, some traffic should be
> routed to the other ISP.
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!

You will need to get yourself a perimeter device with multiple WAN
interfaces that can handle load balancing & failover. I don't know that
you'll be able to use ISA with that, but I may be wrong.

You will also need to be careful about your DNS & MX records, etc. - inbound
access can be tricky with multiple WAN links.

Nope.
It won't.
Ain't never gonna happen.

You need an upstream routing device of some sort that will make those
routing choices. That's what Lanwench is getting at.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------


"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
>server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
>to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for
>emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server,
> but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
> saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
> through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic
> to a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.
>
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

There are a number of dual WAN routers out there that may do everything you
want.

"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
>server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
>to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for
>emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server,
> but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
> saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
> through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic
> to a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.
>
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

I can't believe my eyes! So many replies say "can't be done!"

Ok, first, I'm not worried about in-bound connections. Although, even that
would be easier than some responders would imply.

Anyway, I thought SBS meant "Small Business Server," the single platform
solution to all the needs of a small business. I'm not asking about "Big
Business Server Facility" where we have separate RAS, Exchange, Web, etc.,
platforms and all the fancy hardware that goes with it.

At the very least I should be able to attach two external NICs and set the
default route merit values to favor the faster ISP. I'm just asking here
because this must be a common scenario that can be more smartly handled by
ISA/RRAS. Am I the first to consider this "small" approach?

My thanks to all who took the time to respond.


"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
>server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
>to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for
>emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server,
> but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
> saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
> through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic
> to a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.
>
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

rg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I can't believe my eyes! So many replies say "can't be done!"

Not at all. However, what you requested can't be done without additional
hardware.
>
> Ok, first, I'm not worried about in-bound connections. Although, even
> that would be easier than some responders would imply.

Well, for one thing, SMTP is an "inbound connection" - and that's pretty
important to most people. It can be dealt with, but it's more complex.
>
> Anyway, I thought SBS meant "Small Business Server," the single
> platform solution to all the needs of a small business.

Salespeople and marketing departments would like you to think so, but it
ain't necessarily so.

> I'm not
> asking about "Big Business Server Facility" where we have separate
> RAS, Exchange, Web, etc., platforms and all the fancy hardware that
> goes with it.
> At the very least I should be able to attach two external NICs and
> set the default route merit values to favor the faster ISP. I'm just
> asking here because this must be a common scenario that can be more
> smartly handled by ISA/RRAS.

Nope.

> Am I the first to consider this "small"
> approach?

No, but you seem to be the first who thinks it's possible without additional
hardware.

> My thanks to all who took the time to respond.


>
>
> "rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths.
>> The server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some
>> guidance on how to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have
>> dialup for emergencies, FWIW.)
>>
>> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given
>> server, but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one
>> connections approaches saturation. Naturally, if one connection
>> fails, all traffic should go through the other one. Ideally, if one
>> connection saturates with traffic to a single server, some traffic
>> should be routed to the other ISP. Optionally, if both fail, use the
>> dialup! But lets not consider this
>> option for now...
>>
>> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!

one of the routers with two WAN interfaces will handle this. I think there's
even one, at least, out there that will do 2 ethernet WANs and dialup.

"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
>server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
>to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for
>emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server,
> but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
> saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
> through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic
> to a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.
>
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

Hi rg:

Your idea sounds interesting in concept. Not sure if its doable. We know
there exists dual WAN routers, so failover should work, but to have enough
intelligence that the router tests the speed of the route on every request,
not just on one connection but on two, seems to me to be wishing for more
than is possible. By the time the two tests were made, the results
compared, the conditions may have changed and forced another comparison, by
which time..... you may begin to see a pattern here.

I suspect that if it is doable it would be by some edge device with a
relatively huge price tag, and the money may be better spent in finding a
bigger pipe to the internet with a carrier that will assure you of the
fewest controllable bottlenecks and very reliable public DNS.

BTW, always interested in new terminology.... what are "public Internet
access paths", in the context you are using it here? How would that differ
from "private Internet access paths"?

--
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so that others may benefit.


"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
>server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
>to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for
>emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server,
> but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
> saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
> through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic
> to a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.
>
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

Hi rg:

Your idea sounds interesting in concept. Not sure if its doable. We know
there are dual WAN routers, so failover should work, but to have enough
intelligence that the router tests the speed of the route on every request,
not just on one connection but on two, seems to me to be wishing for more
than is possible. By the time the two tests were made, the results
compared, the conditions may have changed and forced another comparison, by
which time..... you may begin to see a pattern here.

I suspect that if it is doable it would be by some edge device with a
relatively huge price tag, and the money may be better spent in finding a
bigger pipe to the internet with a carrier that will assure you of the
fewest controllable bottlenecks and very reliable public DNS.

BTW, always interested in new terminology.... what are "public Internet
access paths", in the context you are using it here? How would that differ
from "private Internet access paths"?

--
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so that others may benefit.


"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:enlfqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have an SBS 2003 server and several public Internet access paths. The
>server is my firewall, running ISA 2004. I would like some guidance on how
>to set up two broadband access methods. (I also have dialup for
>emergencies, FWIW.)
>
> I would like to see the server use the fastest path to any given server,
> but to back off traffic onto the other ISP if one connections approaches
> saturation. Naturally, if one connection fails, all traffic should go
> through the other one. Ideally, if one connection saturates with traffic
> to a single server, some traffic should be routed to the other ISP.
>
> Optionally, if both fail, use the dialup! But lets not consider this
> option for now...
>
> Is this supported? Any guidance appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>

"rg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Anyway, I thought SBS meant "Small Business Server," the single platform
> solution to all the needs of a small business. I'm not asking about "Big
> Business Server Facility" where we have separate RAS, Exchange, Web, etc.,
> platforms and all the fancy hardware that goes with it.

There's marketing,...then there is the real world. It is "Small Business"
because of the limitations built into it. It doesn't meet *all* needs of a
small business,...it meets the needs it was designed to meet,...there is a
big difference there.

The duel ISP thing has nothing to do with SBS. SBS is not a Server, not a
"Router",...when you add ISA to it you have a Firewall and a simple "low
end" LAN Router.

The newer "home user" NAT Boxes have been incorporating line failover for
may a year or so. Commercial grade Routers have always been able to do this
but they do it with Dynamic Routing Protocols like RIP, IGRP, OSPF, etc.

Without an upstream device built to handle this you are stuck with the
abilities built into Windows,...and ISA just depends on Windows for that.
It is clunky, undependable, and not likely to satisfy what you are looking
for,...hence why we hardly ever mention it and the standard answer is "No
you can't do that".

I couldn't verify it with these articles, but the multiple Gateways may need
to be on the same subnet on the same Nic,...which is not going to happen
with two ISPs.
Here's the links if you want to "punish" yourself with trying this:

128978 - Dead Gateway Detection in TCP/IP for Windows NT
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;128978

171564 - TCP/IP Dead Gateway Detection Algorithm Updated for Windows NT
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;171564


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------