search for: dgd

I have a doubt. If you use such a script monitoring the link status with ping and then reconfiguring, why do you need the DGD patch? You need to do some reconfiguration (change multipath to a single default route) anyway if you use the script, right? Also, the DGD patch uses src to lookup the routing table entry, but if you have a dynamic IP for the WAN interface (PPPoE, DHCP etc), this approach is bound to fail, right?...

Hi All, I have one query which may be quite silly. My Linux internet gateway has Dead Gateway Detetction patches applied to it''s kernel. If I am right, the DGD patches allow us to add static routes which are not destroyed even if the interface or the link goes down. I want to know whether, with the DGD patches applied, the traffic shaping rules defined using tc, added to an interface remain intact when a link/interface goes down (and comes up some time la...

Hi all! After that good thread "DGD patch not detecting dead gateway" I was able to set up a Load Balancing with ping based DGD (without Julian Anastasov patch). But now I''m facing a new problem and tried some options, with only partial solutions. I made a script based on http://www.mail-archive.com/lartc@mailm...

Hi all I would like to know what happens with a dead router in a multipath configuration like the one presented http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html Do i need to monitor dead routers and reconfigure ? Guillermo

Specifying a source for the multipath route solved the problem. > ip rule add priority 200 table multi should be ip rule add prio 200 from $INT_NET table multi > ip route add default table multi proto static \ > nexthop via $EXB_GW dev $EXB_IF weight 1 \ > nexthop via $EXA_GW dev $EXA_IF weight 1 g

Hi I have read various info, and mailing list archives, but have not found an answer to the following. I have a few servers with configurations similar to the following: They each have multiple uplinks to the Internet, and a sample config is as follows: eth1 is 192.168.0.1, connected to 192.168.0.2 eth2 is 192.168.1.1, connected to 192.168.1.2 My default route looks like: ip route add scope

I am running 2.4.20 with Julian Anastasov''s patches (routes-2.4.20-9.diff), iptables v1.2.6a, iproute2-ss010824 on Debian. I have set up our internal gateway to multihome 2 T1''s as described in http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/nano.txt . The only difference is that I use multiple IP''s on the external interfaces. EXA A.B.C.225 --------------------

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=460 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org

Hello, I have configured a load balancing router using Julian''s patches and as described in "nano.txt" for two ISP links as shown below. ISP 1 ISP 2 . . | | | | | | | WAN

Greetings, I wanted to ask the list a question about dead gateway detection. I''ve followed the wonderful writeup by Christoph Simon on how to use Julians patch for dgd on two loadballanced connections, but I don''t want them loadballanced. How can I setup two default gateways but always have one be the preference unless it goes down. Once the dgd code sees that have it switch until it become available again. I''ve tried just adding two default...

Hello all, I need a very simple routing protocol for VPN redundancy. We have several sites and each site has a Linux router and two IPCops each with an ADSL connection to the internet using different ISP''s. I have configured VPN''s between all of the sites for each IPcop on ispA and the same for the IPCops on ispB. This way, if one of the ISP fails, I change the route on the

Hi, A friend of mine has 2 lines of 512kbps terminated in two Linux boxes. He now want to remove those 2 boxes and have some device which will loadbalance the two ISPs and also have a failover arrangement. But he has agreed to give me a chance to do it on Linux for my own satisfication. Is this easy to do with lartc? How do I go about it exactly? I have very less time to do it since his

Hello, I have finished setting up the load balancer with IPROUTE ... also patch the kernel to support DGD and now it''s working fine with the valuable guide at LARTC website, Julian Anastasov, and the kind people in this mailing list. Now I would like to launch a web server and a ftp server to the public but I''m stuck into a problem and really need your help. Currently internal users...

I have 2 cable modems on a server (Linux 2.6.22). I use multipath, so the route is something like this: default nexthop via 201.6.102.1 dev eth1 weight 256 nexthop via 201.6.107.1 dev eth2 weight 128 The first one (eth1) has a higher priority, then when it goes down, I can "ifconfig" the interface eth1 down and Linux automatically detects the "dead"

(I know that what I''m wanting to do can be done, but for some reason I can not get it to work for the life of me. I think I have been staring at it too long and too closely.) I have two different internet connections from two cooperating ISPs. I also have a small 8 block of IPs that are globally routable that both ISPs will route to me via my world facing globally routable IPs that

Hi, Please suppose following config: Two external interfaces for two different providers On each of them configured NAT for specific IP addr. ie. 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 1.1.1.30/30 brd 1.1.1.31 scope global eth2 6: eth4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 2.2.2.66/27 brd 2.2.2.95 scope global eth4 On eth2

Hello all! I applied http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/routes-2.6.8-10.diff patch to kernel 2.6.8.1 and it works fine, or almost fine. It does the load balancing well, but when one link is dropped it continues to try it. At the end of http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt it is said to ping gateway 1 and gateway 2, for the kernel to know if that route is working, but since my linux is connected to the links

...et! that, or you would need 3 routers, one for each subnet and a linux router doing the load balancing in the middle. with 3 routers, the load balancing configurations shouldn''t change, just ip addresses there is a discussion of how to use DNAT (port forwarding) at http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd-usage.txt with dead gateway detection xx.xx.xx.x1/32--->SHDSL#1 (wan0)/ xx.xx.xx.x2/32 server(s) ------> Switch -------> (lan0) Linux Router -- ex. LAMP Server ip 192.168.1.1/28 (wan1)\...

Can someone tell me what concept I''m missing here. The setup is simple. I have two default routes after ifup operations. I use "ip route del" to remove one, but then decide to add it back. The attempt is refused. Why? # ip route ls 66.95.83.208/28 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.95.83.210 65.84.205.96/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 65.84.205.104

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|ip_conntrack |nf_conntrack ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2006-02-14 09:05 MET ------- ipv6 conntrack is