Hi all,
I''ve read all howtos at lartc.org but I still don''t know how
to share
packets between two uplinks. I used iptables/ROUTE target which works on
router box. In this case I can''t use that because this box do
masquerading
and i can''t match destination ip at the prerouting chain in mangle
table. Is
there a solution to specify two gateway to a destination?
problem
|
V
---if1--linux gw---if2-----switch--router1-----link1---- 10.5.0.0/16
clients
\----router2-----link2----/
if2: 10.0.1.1
router1: 10.0.1.6
router2: 10.0.1.8
I tried these but I think I don''t really understand iproute.
ip add 10.5.0.0/16 via 10.0.1.6 via 10.0.1.8 equalize
nor
ip add 10.5.0.0/16 nexthop 10.0.1.6 weight 1 nexthop 10.0.1.8 weight 1
equalize (i know, this is syntax error)
I hope I don''t have to recompile my kernel... :) Thanks in advance!
Viktor
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hi Kertész, Read this doc: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt /Kim On Wednesday 26 March 2003 11:04, Kertész Viktor wrote:> Hi all, > > I''ve read all howtos at lartc.org but I still don''t know how to share > packets between two uplinks. I used iptables/ROUTE target which works on > router box. In this case I can''t use that because this box do masquerading > and i can''t match destination ip at the prerouting chain in mangle table. > Is there a solution to specify two gateway to a destination? > problem > > V > ---if1--linux gw---if2-----switch--router1-----link1---- 10.5.0.0/16 > clients > \----router2-----link2----/ > if2: 10.0.1.1 > router1: 10.0.1.6 > router2: 10.0.1.8 > > I tried these but I think I don''t really understand iproute. > > ip add 10.5.0.0/16 via 10.0.1.6 via 10.0.1.8 equalize > nor > ip add 10.5.0.0/16 nexthop 10.0.1.6 weight 1 nexthop 10.0.1.8 weight 1 > equalize (i know, this is syntax error) > > I hope I don''t have to recompile my kernel... :) Thanks in advance! > > Viktor > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hi Kim,> > Read this doc: > > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txtThanks. I had successfully set up that each connection is estabilished on other line but it''s not an optimal solution for me. Is there a way I can route 50% of traffic put on 1 line? It would be good for me if every second packet would go on the second line. Thanks! Viktor> > I''ve read all howtos at lartc.org but I still don''t know how to share > > packets between two uplinks. I used iptables/ROUTE target which works on > > router box. In this case I can''t use that because this box domasquerading> > and i can''t match destination ip at the prerouting chain in mangletable.> > Is there a solution to specify two gateway to a destination? > > problem > > > > V > > ---if1--linux gw---if2-----switch--router1-----link1---- 10.5.0.0/16 > > clients > > \----router2-----link2----/ > > if2: 10.0.1.1 > > router1: 10.0.1.6 > > router2: 10.0.1.8 > >_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 14:00, Kertész Viktor wrote:> Hi Kim, > > > Read this doc: > > > > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt > > Thanks. I had successfully set up that each connection is estabilished on > other line but it''s not an optimal solution for me. Is there a way I can > route 50% of traffic put on 1 line? It would be good for me if every second > packet would go on the second line. > Thanks! >If you use the weight, then the kernel will split traffic according to the weight. I.e. If you choose weight 5-1, then you will on an average (over a longer period of time) see 5 times more traffic on one line than on the other. Ensuring that packets are divided over the lines equally, you will need the patch for the kernel, which is mentioned on the nano-howto I gave you the link to. Under all circumstanses - if you are using the weight, then the kernel will over a longer period give you what you ask it to do. /Kim _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
May I ask you something?
What is the difference between these:
10.5.0.0/16 proto static
nexthop via 10.0.1.6 dev eth1 weight 1
nexthop via 10.0.1.8 dev eth1 weight 1
AND
10.5.0.0/16
nexthop via 10.0.1.6 dev eth1 weight 1
nexthop via 10.0.1.8 dev eth1 weight 1
Thanks for your answers. Now it''s working but I want to make these
settings
permanent and I haven''t found answers to the above problem.
Viktor
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
To the best of my knowledge or understanding of this topic. On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 08:39, Kertész Viktor wrote:> May I ask you something? > What is the difference between these: > 10.5.0.0/16 proto static > nexthop via 10.0.1.6 dev eth1 weight 1 > nexthop via 10.0.1.8 dev eth1 weight 1 >With the patches proto static is supposed to keep the routes in the routing table regardless of the routes existence.> > 10.5.0.0/16 > nexthop via 10.0.1.6 dev eth1 weight 1 > nexthop via 10.0.1.8 dev eth1 weight 1Without proto static if one of the gateways is a PPP connection or PPPOE then that gateway will be removed if the connection goes down. In the event that you are using routers like I was, where it''s rare the connection between router and network (LAN) will be interrupted it''s more of a mood issue. With PPP or PPPOE connections it can be a must if you want to routes to remain until the connection is restored. However this can cause a further problem as it tries to send packets via a dead gateway. I would look further into the dead gateway detection for more info on this. I am pretty sure it pertains more to that than the concept of having multiple uplinks/internet providers. I could be wrong, and if I am please someone set me straight. Thanks Otherwise that should be the explanation you are seeking? -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios, Inc. 3548 Jamestown Ln. Jacksonville, FL 32223 Phone/Fax 904.260.2445 http://www.obsidian-studios.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> Without proto static if one of the gateways is a PPP connection or PPPOE > then that gateway will be removed if the connection goes down.I haven''t patched the kernel with dead gateway detector patches. Links are stable. I can manually modify config if a line drops.> With PPP or PPPOE connections it can be a must if you want to routes to > remain until the connection is restored.I see. But what are the advantages/disadvantages? My problem is that the connections are not shared as i expected. Traffic on line one is 3 times greater than on line two (after a day testing). I think i made a mistake. Or there is something with this proto static.> Otherwise that should be the explanation you are seeking?Thanks, I looked for something like yours :) Viktor _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 02:41, Kertész Viktor wrote:> > Without proto static if one of the gateways is a PPP connection or PPPOE > > then that gateway will be removed if the connection goes down. > I haven''t patched the kernel with dead gateway detector patches. Links > are stable. I can manually modify config if a line drops.I think Julian''s other patches for multipath routing also address the proto static issue. I could be wrong.> > With PPP or PPPOE connections it can be a must if you want to routes to > > remain until the connection is restored. > I see. But what are the advantages/disadvantages?Good question. That someone else will have to answer. I did not work with PPP or PPPOE connections directly. My routers took care of that before the Linux router.> My problem is that the connections are not shared as i expected. Traffic > on line one is 3 times greater than on line two (after a day testing). I > think i made a mistake. Or there is something with this proto static.I do not think it has to do with proto static. In fact if I remember things correctly. Without the patches proto static does not work properly. Meaning proto static is the same as not having proto static. As for the load not being balanced. Are you using the equalize flag along with the weights? I would try that and see what you get. FYI, it''s very hard to tell if the multipath thing is working with a single machine, single user. Usually you will need multiple users, and multiple machines to see things working the way you expect them to. It is possible the Linux router is doing it''s job. It is also possible the router is not doing it''s job. Sometimes it can be hard to tell. Although once you get things dialed in you will know. -- Sincerely, William L. Thomson Jr. Support Group Obsidian-Studios, Inc. 3548 Jamestown Ln. Jacksonville, FL 32223 Phone/Fax 904.260.2445 http://www.obsidian-studios.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/