LARTC - Oct 2003 - dead onlink

Hello people:
	I''m new in the forum. I''ve implemented the script for load
balancing of
"Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HowTo" and I''ve
a question:
 When I run the next command : "ip route" I get the folowing
information:

--------------
192.168.0.32/27 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.33
192.168.0.96/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.97
192.168.0.64/27 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.65
192.168.0.128/27 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.129
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
default
	nexthop via 192.168.0.126 dev eth2 weight 1 dead onlink
	nexthop via 192.168.0.61 dev eth0 weight 1
-----------------------------

Is normal the part of "dead onlink" ?
Is it balancing the load between both internet providers?

Sorry for my English. I''m from Argentine.

Thanks in advance.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Hello people:
 	I''ve implemented the script for load balancing of
 "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HowTo" on this
structure:


                  ------------------linux gateway (subnet 1)
		!
linux router ------------------intranet (subnet 2)
		!
                 ------------------linux gateway2 (subnet 3)
		!
		 ------------------intranet (subnet 4)


and I''ve a question:
  When I run the next command : "ip route" I get the folowing
information:

 --------------
 192.168.0.32/27 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.33
 192.168.0.96/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.97
 192.168.0.64/27 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.65
 192.168.0.128/27 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.129
 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
 default
 	nexthop via 192.168.0.126 dev eth2 weight 1 dead onlink
 	nexthop via 192.168.0.61 dev eth0 weight 1
 -----------------------------

 Is normal the part of "dead onlink" ?
 This message is always there but the 192.168.0.126 gateway is online.
 Do I need the Julian''s dead gateway detection patch?.

 Thanks in advance.

Marcelo.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Hello,

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Marcelo wrote:
>  default
>  	nexthop via 192.168.0.126 dev eth2 weight 1 dead onlink
>  	nexthop via 192.168.0.61 dev eth0 weight 1
>  -----------------------------
>
>  Is normal the part of "dead onlink" ?
	No, you need the latest ''ip'' utility from iproute2:

ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru/ip-routing/iproute2-2.4.7-now-ss020116-try.tar.gz
>  This message is always there but the 192.168.0.126 gateway is online.
>  Do I need the Julian''s dead gateway detection patch?.
	Not for this problem
>  Thanks in advance.
>
> Marcelo.
Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Marcelo wrote:
>  default
>         nexthop via 192.168.0.126 dev eth2 weight 1 dead onlink
>         nexthop via 192.168.0.61 dev eth0 weight 1
>
>  Is normal the part of "dead onlink" ?
No, it is not normal.  I don''t know what "onlink" means, but
"dead"
means just what you fear it means; eth2 has been set dead by the
kernel.  It could be a routing issue or it could be your firewall, or
possibly the NIC is telling the kernel something bad?

You really need to run 
# ip route list table eth2
# ip route list table eth0
# ip route list table main
to see what is going on.  And assure that when only eth2 is up that you
can surf (perhaps unplug the WAN wire on eth0?).
>  This message is always there but the 192.168.0.126 gateway is online.
Are you 100% sure it is online?  I have NEVER seen "dead" unless it
was
true.  I _have_ been able to send/receive on a different (wrong)
interface while one interface was dead.  (I have 3 ISPs)
>  Do I need the Julian''s dead gateway detection patch?.
Well, whether you "need" it or not, I strongly recommend you apply it.

You might also want to use
# ip route add default   equalize   scope global nexthop via BLAH
BLAH...
rather than
# ip route add default scope global nexthop via BLAH BLAH...

If you run a kernel version 2.4.22 you will need to tweak Julian''s
patch
(I could only find a patch for 2.4.20); if you want my tweaked version
(2.4.22) you can FTP it from andthatsjazz.net/pub/linux/.

And I use KeepState (see nano.txt), though I have NO CLUE why it is A
Good Thing <grin>.  I do not ping from inside though.  I run a dgd ping
from outside; when the ping fails I scp a flag file to the multilink
setup that triggers a flush there.
>  Thanks in advance.
> 
> Marcelo.
gypsy
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Julian and Gypsy:
    Tank you very much for your advices. I''vent tested it yet, but
I''ll try.

Best regartds.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/