Dear Sir, Please help me in building the right solution. My requirement is: 1st I want to club both ISP bandwidth to get 512kbps. 2nd, In normal condition, it should be in Load balancing. 3rd , In ISP Failover condition, traffic will automatically route to working ISP. What I have: I have installed the RHEL 3.0 with 3 Network Card. Kernel is 2.4.21-9EL I have the link from two ISP both 256kbps. Both ISP given 8 real IP Pool. One ISP is through Lease line, terminated at my router CISCO 1841. Output of this is connected to ETH1 2nd ISP is through Ethernet & connected to ETH2 ETH0 is connected to the Local zone. What I have done: I have gone through http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt AND further http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ & got confused in choosing the right patch. Please suggest if I will choose Jumbo Patch patch-2.4.20-ja1.diff , is any other patches also required after this? If yes, is there any sequence in applying these patches? Awaiting your valuable suggestion. Thanking you, Sandeep Agarwal _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Sandeep Agarwal wrote:> > I have gone through http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt AND further > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ & got confused in choosing the right patch. > Please suggest if I will choose Jumbo Patch patch-2.4.20-ja1.diff , is > any other patches also required after this? If yes, is there > any sequence in applying these patches?For your purpose, you need to choose one of the patches at http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes depending on your kernel. You dont need the Jumbo patch for load balancing and failover. The "routes" patch should suffice. -- Manish Kathuria http://www.tuxspace.com/
Manish Kathuria wrote:> >>Sandeep Agarwal wrote: >> >> >> I have gone through http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt AND further >> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ & got confused in choosing the right patch. >> Please suggest if I will choose Jumbo Patch patch-2.4.20-ja1.diff , is >> any other patches also required after this? If yes, is there >> any sequence in applying these patches? >> > >For your purpose, you need to choose one of the patches at >http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes depending on your kernel. You dont need >the Jumbo patch for load balancing and failover. The "routes" patch >should suffice. > >-- >Manish Kathuria >http://www.tuxspace.com/Thanks Manish. I have download routes-2.4.20-9.diff as I have RHEL3.0 (Kernel 2.4.21-9EL) & apply the same. But the output as follows. Is this normal or any problem? # patch -p1 < routes-2.4.20-9.diff patching file linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ip_nat.h patching file linux/include/linux/rtnetlink.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 231 (offset 3 lines). patching file linux/include/net/ip_fib.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 162. Hunk #2 succeeded at 180 with fuzz 1 (offset 5 lines). 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/include/net/ip_fib.h.rej patching file linux/include/net/route.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 49. Hunk #2 succeeded at 120 with fuzz 2 (offset -8 lines). Hunk #3 FAILED at 140. 2 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/include/net/route.h.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/arp.c patching file linux/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c Hunk #3 succeeded at 212 with fuzz 2. Hunk #4 FAILED at 222. Hunk #5 FAILED at 244. Hunk #6 succeeded at 583 (offset -7 lines). 2 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c Hunk #2 FAILED at 313. Hunk #3 succeeded at 461 (offset 24 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 653 (offset 22 lines). 1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/fib_hash.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/fib_rules.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 307. Hunk #2 succeeded at 376 with fuzz 2. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/fib_rules.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c Hunk #4 succeeded at 365 (offset -1 lines). Hunk #5 FAILED at 383. Hunk #6 succeeded at 438 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #7 FAILED at 637. Hunk #8 succeeded at 905 (offset -1 lines). Hunk #9 succeeded at 954 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #10 succeeded at 1007 (offset -1 lines). Hunk #11 succeeded at 1025 with fuzz 1 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #12 succeeded at 1070 (offset -1 lines). 2 out of 12 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/ip_nat_dumb.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 124. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/ip_nat_dumb.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_fw_compat_masq.c Hunk #2 FAILED at 67. Hunk #3 succeeded at 104 (offset 1 line). 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_fw_compat_masq.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 959 (offset 6 lines). patching file linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_standalone.c patching file linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 88. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c.rej patching file linux/net/ipv4/route.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 928 (offset 78 lines). Hunk #2 FAILED at 1352. Hunk #3 FAILED at 1366. Hunk #4 succeeded at 1328 with fuzz 2. Hunk #5 FAILED at 1348. Hunk #6 succeeded at 1456 (offset 77 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 1485 (offset 77 lines). Hunk #9 FAILED at 1524. Hunk #11 succeeded at 1577 with fuzz 2 (offset 81 lines). Hunk #12 FAILED at 1590. Hunk #14 succeeded at 1625 (offset 81 lines). Hunk #15 succeeded at 1580 with fuzz 2 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #16 FAILED at 1593. Hunk #17 succeeded at 1737 (offset 80 lines). Hunk #18 FAILED at 1753. Hunk #19 succeeded at 1723 (offset 3 lines). Hunk #20 FAILED at 1760. Hunk #21 FAILED at 1850. Hunk #22 FAILED at 1858. Hunk #23 FAILED at 1901. Hunk #24 FAILED at 1909. Hunk #25 FAILED at 1972. Hunk #26 FAILED at 2053. 14 out of 26 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file linux/net/ipv4/route.c.rej patching file linux/net/netsyms.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 259 (offset 11 lines). # Thankyou, Sandeep Agarwal _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Sandeep Agarwal wrote:> Manish Kathuria wrote: > > > >>Sandeep Agarwal wrote: > >> > >> > >> I have gone through http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt AND further > >> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ & got confused in choosing the right patch. > >> Please suggest if I will choose Jumbo Patch patch-2.4.20-ja1.diff , is > >> any other patches also required after this? If yes, is there > >> any sequence in applying these patches? > >> > > > >For your purpose, you need to choose one of the patches at > >http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes depending on your kernel. You dont need > >the Jumbo patch for load balancing and failover. The "routes" patch > >should suffice. > > > >-- > >Manish Kathuria > >http://www.tuxspace.com/ > Thanks Manish. > I have download routes-2.4.20-9.diff as I have RHEL3.0 (Kernel > 2.4.21-9EL) & apply the same. > But the output as follows. Is this normal or any problem? > > # patch -p1 < routes-2.4.20-9.diff> Hunk #1 FAILED at 162. > Hunk #2 succeeded at 180 with fuzz 1 (offset 5 lines). > 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > linux/include/net/ip_fib.h.rej > patching file linux/include/net/route.h > Hunk #1 FAILED at 49. > Hunk #2 succeeded at 120 with fuzz 2 (offset -8 lines). > Hunk #3 FAILED at 140. > 2 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > linux/include/net/route.h.rej > patching file linux/net/ipv4/arp.c > patching file linux/net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c > Hunk #3 succeeded at 212 with fuzz 2. > Hunk #4 FAILED at 222. > Hunk #5 FAILED at 244.The Red Hat kernels are not just plain vanilla kernels. They already have a number of patches applied by Red Hat and it is likely that the patch being applied by you is conflicting by one of those. You can either try some other kernel version or download a plain vanilla kernel from http://www.kernel.org/ and apply the routes patch on it. -- Manish http://www.tuxspace.com/