Hi! (I sent other mails some time ago, about not-using the Julian''s patches). When I try the configuration from Nano.txt, having the Julian''s patches applied, only the first ''hop'' of the routing table "222" is used (according to tables shown in Nano.txt). I saw that this question was asked some time ago, with no answer. Maybe someone can tell me the solution? The routing policy rules/tables are the same, as I sent in my last email, but with this table 222: default proto static nexthop via 192.168.16.2 dev eth1 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.17.2 dev eth2 weight 1 Even trying lots of "ip route get x.x.x.x", always the first hop is chosen. Everything is written according to Nano.txt (I think :). Thanks!
On 7/6/05, Vinay <vinayamar@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, > I had 3 cards, eth0 and eth1 connecting to 2 isps and eth2 > connecting to lan. First i setup the address configuration for these > cards without the gateway option. So i specified only Ip address and > netmask. Then i gave the masquerade option for both the network cards > and made necessary chnages in the firewall. Next I executed the > script which i got from > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2003q4/010372.html. After > running the script the system was using both the connections . But > since i hadnt use the patch, it was not able to detect the dead > gateway. So if one of the link goes down, it creates problem.I tried that way, and routing works _only for local connections_. It doesn''t work for NAT connections. So, the result is the same, as the configuration I was trying is the same, which is set in the script you gave. :)> > Can u please explain how u have applied the patch .I have not applied the patch in the configuration I''m trying to get working :) So, by now, I don''t use that patch. I explain howI think the multipath routing + NAT doesn''t work, in a mail I just sent. :) But as there I explained how I understand that nothing may work without patches (in the mail sent to the list, before this one), I''ll start trying with the patches applied. I applied them to a vanilla kernel by: cd /usr/src/linux patch -p1 < the_patch.diff This results in changing some files, as expected. So the patching should be well done. Thanks!
UF. Sorry. I answered stupidly to your email. You replied about the Julian''s patches... I''ve sent a big amount of email, and not only about a single configuration. I don''t know why, but now the patches work. I swear I haven''t changed anything in my configuration; simply, after rebooting, some minutes without changing anything, everything worked. Strange, strange. So, it works. Thanks! - Wow, I''ve learnt a lot about netfilter and policy routing... On 7/6/05, Lluís Batlle <viriketo@gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/6/05, Vinay <vinayamar@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I had 3 cards, eth0 and eth1 connecting to 2 isps and eth2 > > connecting to lan. First i setup the address configuration for these > > cards without the gateway option. So i specified only Ip address and > > netmask. Then i gave the masquerade option for both the network cards > > and made necessary chnages in the firewall. Next I executed the > > script which i got from > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2003q4/010372.html. After > > running the script the system was using both the connections . But > > since i hadnt use the patch, it was not able to detect the dead > > gateway. So if one of the link goes down, it creates problem. > I tried that way, and routing works _only for local connections_. It > doesn''t work for NAT connections. So, the result is the same, as the > configuration I was trying is the same, which is set in the script you > gave. :) > > > > > Can u please explain how u have applied the patch . > I have not applied the patch in the configuration I''m trying to get > working :) So, by now, I don''t use that patch. I explain howI think > the multipath routing + NAT doesn''t work, in a mail I just sent. :) > But as there I explained how I understand that nothing may work > without patches (in the mail sent to the list, before this one), I''ll > start trying with the patches applied. I applied them to a vanilla > kernel by: > cd /usr/src/linux > patch -p1 < the_patch.diff > > This results in changing some files, as expected. So the patching > should be well done. > > Thanks! >