I''ve been reading the MultiISP page and I feel a bit puzzled regarding a few points. My Setup will be 2 aDSL connections using simple Zyxel adsl modems and pppoe. Thus when the connections come up they will be named ppp0 and ppp1 in a randon fashion. However the setup in providers file ( INTERFACE field ) requires you to know the interface that will be used against a specific provider. But there is no way one can be sure that ISP1 will be ppp0 and the and ISP2 ppp1. This gets more complicated with the masq setup when routing smtp or whatever traffic through a Certain ISP. Questions: a) Is it right the Intrface field in the in the interfaces file be ppp+ ?????? b) Can MultiISP function with pppoe, or is it better to choose a different approach ???. Please advise. Regards.... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 07:57, lharry@freemail.gr wrote:> > Questions: > > a) Is it right the Intrface field in the in the interfaces file be ppp+ > ??????No. And if you can''t describe to Shorewall which ISP corresponds to which device, Shorewall certainly can''t figure it out for itself. Solving this problem requires quite a bit of scripting on your part (PPP ip-up script saves away the ISP->pppX correspondence so that you can set shell variables in /etc/shorewall/params. Note also that most (all) PPPoE products on Linux can''t properly bring up two lines to two ISPs; the default gateway will usually be determined by which ISP connects first.> > b) Can MultiISP function with pppoe, or is it better to choose a > different approach ???. >With these low-cost lines, it takes a lot of effort on your part to make this work (check the list archives for posts from Jerry Voneau on this subject). And it''s not effort that Shorewall will give you any help with (now or in the future). In my view, this setup won''t be easy until the vendor ifup scripts get a lot smarter about dealing with multiple uplinks. So think carefully before you commit to MultiISP in this environment -- you might be better off with two separate firewalls. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Dear Tom, Thanks for your immediate response to my questions.> On Tuesday 07 March 2006 07:57, lharry@freemail.gr wrote: > > > > > Questions: > > > > a) Is it right the Intrface field in the in the interfaces file be ppp+ > > ?????? > > No. And if you can''t describe to Shorewall which ISP corresponds to which=20 > device, Shorewall certainly can''t figure it out for itself. Solving this=20 > problem requires quite a bit of scripting on your part (PPP ip-up script=20 > saves away the ISP->pppX correspondence so that you can set shell variables> =20 > in /etc/shorewall/params. > > Note also that most (all) PPPoE products on Linux can''t properly bring up t> wo=20 > lines to two ISPs; the default gateway will usually be determined by which> =20 > ISP connects first.=20 > > > > > b) Can MultiISP function with pppoe, or is it better to choose a > > different approach ???. > > > > With these low-cost lines, it takes a lot of effort on your part to make th> is=20 > work (check the list archives for posts from Jerry Voneau on this subject).> =20 > And it''s not effort that Shorewall will give you any help with (now or in t> he=20 > future). In my view, this setup won''t be easy until the vendor ifup scripts> =20 > get a lot smarter about dealing with multiple uplinks. > > So think carefully before you commit to MultiISP in this environment -- you> =20 > might be better off with two separate firewalls.This is indeed a strange suggestion. So where the bandwidth balancing should take place?? On a third Firewall behind the front ones?? Regards ....... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
Hi. Some idea here. how about changing both the modems to act as a router? So that you can get eth0 and eth1. That is what i did last time. On 3/9/06, lharry@freemail.gr <lharry@freemail.gr> wrote:> > Dear Tom, > Thanks for your immediate response to my questions. > > > On Tuesday 07 March 2006 07:57, lharry@freemail.gr wrote: > > > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > a) Is it right the Intrface field in the in the interfaces file be ppp+ > > > ?????? > > > > No. And if you can''t describe to Shorewall which ISP corresponds to which=20 > > device, Shorewall certainly can''t figure it out for itself. Solving this=20 > > problem requires quite a bit of scripting on your part (PPP ip-up script=20 > > saves away the ISP->pppX correspondence so that you can set shell variables> > =20 > > in /etc/shorewall/params. > > > > Note also that most (all) PPPoE products on Linux can''t properly bring up t> > wo=20 > > lines to two ISPs; the default gateway will usually be determined by which> > =20 > > ISP connects first.=20 > > > > > > > > b) Can MultiISP function with pppoe, or is it better to choose a > > > different approach ???. > > > > > > > With these low-cost lines, it takes a lot of effort on your part to make th> > is=20 > > work (check the list archives for posts from Jerry Voneau on this subject).> > =20 > > And it''s not effort that Shorewall will give you any help with (now or in t> > he=20 > > future). In my view, this setup won''t be easy until the vendor ifup scripts> > =20 > > get a lot smarter about dealing with multiple uplinks. > > > > So think carefully before you commit to MultiISP in this environment -- you> > =20 > > might be better off with two separate firewalls. > > This is indeed a strange suggestion. So where the bandwidth balancing should take place?? > On a third Firewall behind the front ones?? > Regards ....... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users >-- Regards, Wong Chee Chun Network Engineer Softmy Co. Ltd (http://www.softmy.com) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
Thanks.. As a matter of fact I was thinking to move torwards this scenario. One thing that bugs me though is what happens when the DSL link goes down, propably the firewall ( running on linux ) routing mechanism will not be aware of it correct?? Are you using RFC1918 addresses on your routers/modems or your modems give you the external ip that your ISP provides ( I think this is called half Bridge mode ) ?? Is you setup functioning OK as far as balancing is concerned ?? Thanks in advance man.. Regards....> Hi. Some idea here. how about changing both the modems to act as a > router? So that you can get eth0 and eth1. That is what i did last > time. > > On 3/9/06, lharry@freemail.gr <lharry@freemail.gr> wrote: > > > > Dear Tom, > > Thanks for your immediate response to my questions. > > > > > On Tuesday 07 March 2006 07:57, lharry@freemail.gr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > > > a) Is it right the Intrface field in the in the interfaces file be p> pp+ > > > > ?????? > > > > > > No. And if you can''t describe to Shorewall which ISP corresponds to whi> ch=3D20 > > > device, Shorewall certainly can''t figure it out for itself. Solving thi> s=3D20 > > > problem requires quite a bit of scripting on your part (PPP ip-up scrip> t=3D20 > > > saves away the ISP->pppX correspondence so that you can set shell varia> bles=3D > > > =3D20 > > > in /etc/shorewall/params. > > > > > > Note also that most (all) PPPoE products on Linux can''t properly bring > up t=3D > > > wo=3D20 > > > lines to two ISPs; the default gateway will usually be determined by wh> ich=3D > > > =3D20 > > > ISP connects first.=3D20 > > > > > > > > > > > b) Can MultiISP function with pppoe, or is it better to choose a > > > > different approach ???. > > > > > > > > > > With these low-cost lines, it takes a lot of effort on your part to mak> e th=3D > > > is=3D20 > > > work (check the list archives for posts from Jerry Voneau on this subje> ct).=3D > > > =3D20 > > > And it''s not effort that Shorewall will give you any help with (now or > in t=3D > > > he=3D20 > > > future). In my view, this setup won''t be easy until the vendor ifup scr> ipts=3D > > > =3D20 > > > get a lot smarter about dealing with multiple uplinks. > > > > > > So think carefully before you commit to MultiISP in this environment --> you=3D > > > =3D20 > > > might be better off with two separate firewalls. > > > > This is indeed a strange suggestion. So where the bandwidth balancing sho> uld take place?? > > On a third Firewall behind the front ones?? > > Regards ....... > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting langua> ge > > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webc> ast > > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territor> y! > > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D110944&bid=3D241720&dat> =3D121642 > > _______________________________________________ > > Shorewall-users mailing list > > Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Wong Chee Chun > Network Engineer > Softmy Co. Ltd > (http://www.softmy.com) > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:00, lharry@freemail.gr wrote:> > > > So think carefully before you commit to MultiISP in this environment -- > > you= =20 > > might be better off with two separate firewalls. > > This is indeed a strange suggestion. So where the bandwidth balancing > should take place?? On a third Firewall behind the front ones?? >Exactly where in your original post did you list bandwidth balancing as a requirement? -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
On Thursday 09 March 2006 01:11, grharry@freemail.gr wrote:> Thanks.. > As a matter of fact I was thinking to move torwards this scenario. > One thing that bugs me though is what happens when the DSL link goes down, > propably the firewall ( running on linux ) routing mechanism will not be > aware of it correct??That''s correct (and spelled out explicitly in the Shorewall MultiISP documentation). I think you probably want to use RFC 1918 IP addresses so that they can be static as far as your firewall goes; otherwise, you haven''t solved your original problem. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key