Payal Rathod wrote: > Hi, > Is it possible to use more than one default route? I believe yes. > Any comments on them. If I use more than one, where will the trafficc be > diverted from? That's a good question. I was going to answer your other post, but did some tests which contradicted what I was going to say. I originally thought if you had two default routes on the same metric, traffic would just go out the first one, however, when I tried this earlier, I started losing packets, so I can only assume the packets were going out the other route, and then getting lost. anyone comment on this ? If you use the ip route tool to created multiple weighted or equalized default routes, you then use source-based routing to make sure that the traffic goes back out the same route it came in on. (unless you're trying to be tricky with asymetrical routing) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Damion de Soto - Software Engineer email: damion@snapgear.com SnapGear --- ph: +61 7 3435 2809 | Custom Embedded Solutions fax: +61 7 3891 3630 | and Security Appliances web: http://www.snapgear.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- Free Embedded Linux Distro at http://www.snapgear.org ---
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 04:29:25PM +1000, Damion de Soto wrote:
> >Is it possible to use more than one default route? I believe yes.
> >Any comments on them. If I use more than one, where will the trafficc
be
> >diverted from?
> That's a good question. I was going to answer your other post, but did
> some tests
> which contradicted what I was going to say.
>
> I originally thought if you had two default routes on the same metric,
> traffic would just go out the first one, however, when I tried this
> earlier, I started losing packets, so I can only assume the packets were
> going out the other route, and then getting lost. anyone comment on this ?
A friend of mine says that if y ou have 2 default routes on different
subnets each the routing will be done randomly. Unfortunately I do not
have that kind of setup to test.
I did it on same subnet using 2 default routes and found that I was
losing packets too.
> If you use the ip route tool to created multiple weighted or equalized
> default routes, you then use source-based routing to make sure that the
> traffic goes back out the same route it came in on.
> (unless you're trying to be tricky with asymetrical routing)
Isn't random routing (without depending on source) easy to implement
than source based routing?
Can you please tell what you mean by using ip route to create multiple
weighted routes? I have absoluttely no idea what ip command does
exactly. I am using just plain "route" and ifconfig. Are they
decrepated?
With warm regards,
-Payal
--
For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit:
http://payal.staticky.com
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Payal Rathod wrote: > Can you please tell what you mean by using ip route to create multiple > weighted routes? I have absoluttely no idea what ip command does > exactly. I am using just plain "route" and ifconfig. Are they > decrepated? ip is more flexible, ip can do both the jobs i.e what route and ifconfig does. Download iproute2 package and you can know it by your self. Vadiraj C S
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Damion de Soto wrote: > getting lost. anyone comment on this ? > > If you use the ip route tool to created multiple weighted or equalized default > routes, you then use source-based routing to make sure that the traffic goes back out > the same route it came in on. > (unless you're trying to be tricky with asymetrical routing) I tried this, the routes get cached so most of the time the packets leave from the route they came in, but you can have two routes and there is no packet loss. Vadiraj C S
On Thursday 30 October 2003 02:52 am, Vadiraj C S scrawled: > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Damion de Soto wrote: > > getting lost. anyone comment on this ? > > > > If you use the ip route tool to created multiple weighted or equalized > > default routes, you then use source-based routing to make sure that the > > traffic goes back out the same route it came in on. > > (unless you're trying to be tricky with asymetrical routing) > > I tried this, the routes get cached so most of the time the packets > leave from the route they came in, but you can have two routes and > there is no packet loss. > > Vadiraj C S > hi, Having multiple equal cost routes just ensures that the traffic is balanced per-route, i.e. every time a route is looked up in the FIB table, the load-balancing comes into picture. but once a route has been established for a destination, it is cached and all packets to that destination go via that route. However, if you install the nano patch (http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt), the the load-balancing is done on a per-packet basis. so for every packet, leaving the system (either forwarded or output), the FIB table is consulted and the packets are balanced on the multiple equal-cost paths provided you have 'equalize' keyword for that multiple equal-cost route. current i am actually implementing load-balancing (outgoing) on a per-session and current-bandwidth-usage basis. hope that helps. ashok > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- N N Ashok Ph: 408-644-3646 (c) 517-353-4633 (ELANS Lab) 517-355-1789 (ERL Lab) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------