Hi,
I have a router that got its second link. I was trying to do load
balancing, but i can not get it to work properly.
Just one link works at time, and is always the second in the command ip
route add default table 222 proto static.
Am I missing something? My script is below. I am using Debian, tried
with kernel 2.6.19 (my compilation) or debian''s one (2.6.18-3-486),
same results
Thanks
========================================================================ip rule
add prio 50 table main
ip route del default table main
ip rule add prio $PRIO1 from $NET1 table $PRIO1
ip route add default via $IPGW1 dev $INTERFACE1 src $IP1 proto static
table $PRIO1
ip route append prohibit default table $PRIO1 metric 1 proto static
ip rule add prio $PRIO2 from $NET2 table $PRIO2
ip route add default via $IPGW2 dev $INTERFACE2 src $IP2 proto static
table $PRIO2
ip route append prohibit default table $PRIO2 metric 1 proto static
ip rule add prio 222 table 222
ip route add default table 222 proto static \
nexthop via $IPGW1 dev $INTERFACE1 weight $WE1 \
nexthop via $IPGW2 dev $INTERFACE2 weight $WE2
================================================================
--
Alan Romaniuc
I am having with loadbalancing. I can get it working never....
I have this scenario:
INTRANET -------- (IP0, INTERFACE0) ROUTER (IP1,INTERFACE1) ----
NET1 --- (IPGW1) EXTRANET 1
|
|----(IP2,INTERFACE2) ----
NET2 --- (IPGW2) EXTRANET 2
I have a Debian box with debian kernel, and I have a my kernel too, ith
patches from Julian''s route patch page.
Here is my scritp... copied from lartc
===ip route add $NET1 dev $INTERFACE1 src $IP1 table $TABLE1
ip route add default via $IPGW1 table $TABLE1
ip route add $NET2 dev $INTERFACE2 src $IP2 table $TABLE2
ip route add default via $IPGW2 table $TABLE2
ip route add $NET1 dev $INTERFACE1 src $IP1
ip route add $NET2 dev $INTERFACE2 src $IP2
#ip route add default via $IPGW1
ip rule add from $IP1 table $TABLE1
ip rule add from $IP2 table $TABLE2
# MAGIC LINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ip route add default scope global \
nexthop via $IPGW1 dev $INTERFACE1 weight $WE1 \
nexthop via $IPGW2 dev $INTERFACE2 weight $WE2
ip route add $NET0 dev $INTERFACE0 table $TABLE1
ip route add $NET2 dev $INTERFACE2 table $TABLE1
ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table $TABLE1
ip route add $NET0 dev $INTERFACE0 table $TABLE2
ip route add $NET1 dev $INTERFACE1 table $TABLE2
ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table $TABLE2
#Extra rule for cable router
if [ "$ROUTER1" ]; then
ip route add $ROUTER1 dev $INTERFACE1 src $IP1
fi
=====
with this script, I am getting always rooted using the second gateway
from "MAGIC LINE", with am i doing a download (bittorrent for example)
and redefine the routes (changing the first by the second) I can get a
full download speedy (link1 + link2 bitrate) and both interface works
normally. If I stop my torrent, flush the table, and start the download
again, only the second link will work again, so load balancing never
works...
here is some more debug information:
>>ip rule
0: from all lookup 255
32764: from 189.1.1.130 lookup uplink_e
32765: from 201.1.1.88 lookup uplink_v
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
>>ip route
192.168.100.1 dev eth_virtua scope link src 201.6.156.88
189.1.1.128/26 dev eth_embratel proto kernel scope link src 189.1.1.130
10.0.0.0/24 dev eth_wifi proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth_intra1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.1
201.1.1.0/24 dev eth_virtua proto kernel scope link src 201.1.1.88
default
nexthop via 201.1.1.1 dev eth_virtua weight 1
nexthop via 189.1.1.129 dev eth_embratel weight 1
>>Iptables (All ACCEPT)
$IPTABLES -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $INTERFACE1 -j SNAT --to-source $IP1
$IPTABLES -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $INTERFACE2 -j SNAT --to-source $IP2
>>rt_tables
#
# reserved values
#
255 local
254 main
253 default
0 unspec
#
# local
#
#1 inr.ruhep
203 uplink_e
202 uplink_v
PS: Ip numbers are not real .... :/
Thanks in advance for any help;
--
Alan Romaniuc
Phone : +55 11 5105-4955
Mobile : +55 11 8270-2520
alan.romaniuc@inteligensa.com.br
INTELIGENSA DO BRASIL
Rua Quintana, 887, 5o. andar - Brooklin
04569-011 - São Paulo - SP - BRASIL
www.inteligensa.com.br
On Friday 05 January 2007 08:33, Alan Romaniuc wrote:> Hi, > > I have a router that got its second link. I was trying to do load > balancing, but i can not get it to work properly. > > Just one link works at time, and is always the second in the command ip > route add default table 222 proto static. > > Am I missing something? My script is below. I am using Debian, tried > with kernel 2.6.19 (my compilation) or debian''s one (2.6.18-3-486), > same resultsTry "your compilation" without CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED there are several threads on this topic in the archive, one as reference: http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060618.150532.8a6cc07f.en.html If it solves the problem, maybe is time to contact the author of Multipath Cached and send some report. -- Luciano
Hi all, After setting the CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED to no and apply patches from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes , everything is working fine. No more problems with the two uplinks and one route only. Thanks for the help... I''ve been fighting with that for one week.... I will point this solution in another places too. Thanks again, Alan Luciano Ruete escreveu:> On Friday 05 January 2007 08:33, Alan Romaniuc wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a router that got its second link. I was trying to do load >> balancing, but i can not get it to work properly. >> >> Just one link works at time, and is always the second in the command ip >> route add default table 222 proto static. >> >> Am I missing something? My script is below. I am using Debian, tried >> with kernel 2.6.19 (my compilation) or debian''s one (2.6.18-3-486), >> same results >> > > Try "your compilation" without CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED > > there are several threads on this topic in the archive, one as reference: > http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060618.150532.8a6cc07f.en.html > > If it solves the problem, maybe is time to contact the author of Multipath > Cached and send some report. >
Hi , Are U test it for same remote site and same client ?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Romaniuc" <alan.romaniuc@inteligensa.com.br> To: <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [LARTC] Load Balancing Problems> > Hi all, > > After setting the CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED to no and apply patches > from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes , everything is working fine. No more > problems with the two uplinks and one route only. > > Thanks for the help... I''ve been fighting with that for one week.... > > I will point this solution in another places too. > > Thanks again, > > Alan > > > > > Luciano Ruete escreveu: >> On Friday 05 January 2007 08:33, Alan Romaniuc wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a router that got its second link. I was trying to do load >>> balancing, but i can not get it to work properly. >>> >>> Just one link works at time, and is always the second in the command ip >>> route add default table 222 proto static. >>> >>> Am I missing something? My script is below. I am using Debian, tried >>> with kernel 2.6.19 (my compilation) or debian''s one (2.6.18-3-486), >>> same results >>> >> >> Try "your compilation" without CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED >> >> there are several threads on this topic in the archive, one as reference: >> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060618.150532.8a6cc07f.en.html >> >> If it solves the problem, maybe is time to contact the author of >> Multipath Cached and send some report. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.