search for: nexthop

I have question about multipath routing. I am running a 2.6.7 kernel (gentoo). I have a route with three nexthops on the same interface. I see a different nexthop being picked for different destination addresses. All is fine. Now if one of the nexthop goes down (arp entry times out and arp request doesnt get a response), does it remove the nexthop from contention and only use the remaining two from this poin...

Hello lartc! I have strange problem setting load balancing over 4 interfaces. Something won''t accept more than 3 interfaces, While setting: ip route add default scope global \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc0 weight 1 \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc1 weight 1 \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc2 weight 1 It''s ok: ip r l default nexthop dev pvc0 weight 1 nexthop dev pvc1 weight 1 nexthop dev pvc2 weight 1 But while I try to do same o...

I have looked through the archives, and I can''t find the answer(not that it isn''t there) I have two connections to the net. I want load balancing and redundancy. cable adsl (24.141.) (64.229) | | | | | | | | ------------ | linux | |redhat 7.0| I have no idea were to even start. I would like equal access to both connections.

Hi. I''ve trying to balance outgoing traffic by using multipath routes, but I can''t get it to work. Only one of the routes are used. I''m adding the route like this: ip route add table 101 default \ nexthop via X.X.X.X nexthop via Y.Y.Y.Y It shows up the routing table like this: default nexthop via X.X.X.X dev vlan110 weight 1 nexthop via Y.Y.Y.Y dev vlan120 weight 1 So it looks quite good. However, all traffic is routed via Y.Y.Y.Y, no matter what I do. I...

Hi all :) there is somekind of strange Routing problem that im getting with Linux-2.6.16 and iproute 2.6.16 , when i use command like : ip route add default nexthop via 1.1.1.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 1.1.1.2 dev eth1 all packets goes on 1.1.1.2 ( always last interface ) , whats is the problem ? this situation also tested with equalize flag , on two physical interface and etc ... -- Lady Luck brings added income today. Lady friend takes it away tonight.

....ci1070300036[14384]: total bytes in: 2294 2011-08-16 14:24:41 tinc.ci1070300036[14384]: total bytes out: 13329 2011-08-16 14:24:41 tinc.ci1070300036[14384]: Nodes: 2011-08-16 14:24:41 tinc.ci1070300036[14384]: ca1070300036 at (null) cipher 0 digest 0 maclength 0 compression 0 options 0 status 0020 nexthop - via - pmtu 1518 (min 0 max 1518) 2011-08-16 14:24:41 tinc.ci1070300036[14384]: ca1070300362 at (null) cipher 0 digest 0 maclength 0 compression 0 options 0 status 0020 nexthop - via - pmtu 1518 (min 0 max 1518) 2011-08-16 14:24:41 tinc.ci1070300036[14384]: ci1070300036 at MYSELF cipher 0 digest 0...

...ng up Route Filtering... Setting up Martian Logging... Adding Providers... Setting up Traffic Control... Preparing iptables-restore input... Running /sbin/iptables-restore... IPv4 Forwarding Enabled done. .... .... 172.20.8.0/24 dev eth0.9 proto kernel scope link src 172.20.8.254 default nexthop via 88.162.205.254 dev eth2.303 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.0.1 dev eth2.301 weight 1 nexthop via 88.162.207.254 dev eth2.302 weight 1 *eth2.303 is Up!* Restarting Shorewall.... Initializing... Setting up Route Filtering... Setting up Martian Logging... Adding Providers... Sett...

...C list. I had intermediate skills in networking. What I tried to do: Use 2 links with loadsharing + falt toletant (to add bandwitdh) ok ! I am use Debian Etch in router/fw With kernel debian default + routes-2.6.17-12.diff patch The Problem: The iproute2 just route thought the last gateway of nexthop rule. I was running tcpdump in 2 terminals, tcpdump -nni eth0 ... tcpdump -nni eth1 ... When the mark rule is set to --set-mark 0x1 they use eth0 When the mark rule is set to --set-mark 0x2 they use eth1 When the mark rule is set to --set-mark 0x3 they use the last gateway in rul...

Hello, We have debian with 2.4.19-pre8 kernel We active the load balancing with two ethernets to internet, wih the command: ip rule add from 128.1.3.1/32 lookup host_proxy preference 2060 ip route add default table host_proxy proto static nexthop via 80.25.175.1 dev eth0 \ nexthop via 212.170.14.1 dev eth1 when see the route with ip route list table host_proxy, gets : default proto static nexthop via 80.25.175.1 dev eth0 weight 1 dead nexthop via 212.170.14.1 dev eth1...

...X.Y3/29 dev eth0 ip link set eth1 up ip addr add 192.168.221.254/24 dev eth1 ip route add 192.168.221.0/24 dev eth1 ip link set eth2 up ip addr add 172.16.1.100/24 dev eth2 ip route add 172.16.1.0/24 dev eth2 # routing... echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward ip r a default proto static \ nexthop via 172.16.1.1 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.2 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.3 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.4 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.5 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.6 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.7 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 172.16.1.8 dev eth2 \ nexthop via 200.26.X.Y4 dev eth0 #...

...balance my network. Unfortunately I think my setup is very uncommon, so I''m looking to you guys to see if you can help. I currently have 2 ADSL modems, provided by the same ISP and terminating on the same gateway (I think having the same gateway is what is causing the problems, since the nexthop is always the same for each interface). I''ve tried using equal cost multipath (using ip route to set two nexthops with equal weights). Problem is I believe this uses route lookups to determine which interface to use, and thus for sending data to common destinations it only ever uses 1 int...

...main table) We want to balance selected traffic (using fwmark and iptables) through our 3 DSL connections in a secondary table named DSL (without using the dedicated link in eth0), but the next command is not accepted, and gives us the following error: # ip route add default scope global nexthop via 10.0.1.1 dev eth3 weight 1 nexthop via 10.0.2.1 dev eth3 weight 3 nexthop via 10.0.3.1 dev eth3 weight 2 table DSL Error: "nexthop" or end of line is expected instead of "table" That because the syntax rules of ip: # ip route add help Usage: ip route...

...pstream bandwidth, one has 800kbit and the other 600kbit, so ideally I would like to send packets in a 4:3 ratio, is there anything in 2.6 or a patch for 2.4 that could be used to do that? I tried this ugly hack but it didn''t seem to work: ip route add default src my.ip.add.res equalize nexthop via a.a.a.a weight 1 nexthop via b.b.b.b weight 1 nexthop via a.a.a.a weight 1 exthop via b.b.b.b weight 1 nexthop via a.a.a.a weight 1 nexthop via b.b.b.b weight 1 nexthop via a.a.a.a weight 1 ? Andy */ String to disable horrible email disclaimer:JOSEDV001TAG /*

...e http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ Overall everything works nearly perfectly. Incomming connections to either the fios (PPPoE) connection, or cable modem get routed back out correctly. The problem I''m having is with the default gateway. ${IP} route add default table 221 proto static \ nexthop via ${EXTGW2} dev ${EXTIF2} weight 1\ nexthop via ${EXTGW1} dev ${EXTIF1} weight 5 With this command, connections going out from my network always seem to use the GW1 route. I if I reverse the order of the nexthop''s to list GW1 first and GW2 second, then the reverse happens a...

...127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table T3 ip route add 23.215.17.54 dev eth1 table T3 ip route add 23.215.4.61 dev eth2 table T3 ip route add 23.215.3.20 dev eth0 table T3 #Load Balancing ip route add default scope global nexthop via 23.215.3.17 dev eth0 weight 40 nexthop via 23.215.4.1 dev eth2 weight 30 nexthop via 23.215.16.1 dev eth1 weight 30 Any help would be great, this is a new procedure for me and it would be nice to get it all sorted out and working. - Jason _______________________________________________...

...-A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.128 -o eth2 -j SNAT --to-source 82.77.148.83 -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.128 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source 83.103.190.175 ## Removing default routing /sbin/ip rule add prio 50 table main /sbin/ip route del default table main ## Default gateway using nexthop /sbin/ip rule add prio 201 from 82.77.148.83/25 table 201 /sbin/ip route add default via 82.77.148.1 dev eth2 src 82.77.148.83 proto static table 201 /sbin/ip route append prohibit default table 201 metric 1 proto static /sbin/ip rule add prio 202 from 83.103.190.175/27 table 202 /sbin/ip route ad...

Dear Alexey, Sorry to bother you with this small question about nexthop syntax failing, but I haven''t found anyone else who can answer it - including Matthew Marsh or those on the lartc mailing list. The problem, with 2.2.19 and 2.2.20 kernels and versions of iproute2 up to iproute2-2.2.4-now-ss001007 (the most recent that compiles for me), is that this comman...

...192.168.0.1 - eth1 with 192.168.1.10 on subnet 192.168.1.0/24 gateway 192.168.1.1 Where eth0's network is a "back door" to the internet, and eth1's is the "front door", I believe I can configure the routing table manually like this: ip route default scope global \ nexthop via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1 weight 1 \ nexthop via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 weight 2 However, I've re-read the RHEL6 documents for configuring static routes here: http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/s1-networkscripts-static-routes.html This kind of...

...With this option : (a) any ADD_EDGE/ADD_SUBNET/ANS_KEY/... will be cancelled if it comes from a non-trusted connection (b) all REQ_KEY will be sent to trusted nodes only. (a) is easy, but we do not know how to manage (b). In net_packet.c and protocol_key.c we see : send_req_key(n->nexthop->connection, myself, n); The question is : how to be sure that "n->nexthop->connection" will be a "trusted connection" ? (c->name in TrustedNode). One of our question is : if we cancel any ADD_* from untrusted node, can nexthop be a untrusted node ?... As far as...

...65.165.187.47 165.165.160.1 dev ppp4 proto kernel scope link src 165.165.170.110 165.165.160.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 165.165.179.151 165.165.160.1 dev ppp2 proto kernel scope link src 165.165.189.95 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1 default nexthop via 165.165.160.1 dev ppp0 weight 1 nexthop via 165.165.160.1 dev ppp1 weight 1 nexthop via 165.165.160.1 dev ppp2 weight 1 nexthop via 165.165.160.1 dev ppp3 weight 1 nexthop via 165.165.160.1 dev ppp4 weight 1