similar to: ip route and nexthop: the "CentOS" way

Hi! In our students'' hostel we have 6 DSL lines (dialups to different providers); we have set up a linux box (currently running 2.6.11-rc2-mm2, but the problem described hereafter also applies to previous 2.6-series kernels) with help from http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html#AEN298 Our Setup looks like this: 10.0.0.0/8 10.70.255.1 +----------+ +-----------+ |

I''ve applied julian''s paches to a 2.6.14 gentoo kernel with the appropiate options enabled, and i''m using a modified version of the mpath2.sh script also available on julian''s site 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

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

I have two internet lines and I want to do equal cost loadbalancing on the two uplinks to the internet. This is what I do: ip route add 200.200.200.0/24 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add default via 200.200.200.254 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add 100.100.100.0/24 dev eth1 table 100 ip route add default via 100.100.100.254 dev eth1 table 100 ip route add 200.200.200.0/24 src 200.200.200.1 dev eth2

Hello, This is on Centos 6 and not something I think is wrong with Centos 6 but I am looking to see if anybody else has experienced this and if there is solution. So thanks up front for indulging me. Because Linux makes routing decisions before SNAT it is causing problems when trying to use FTP with two upstream providers in a load balanced setup. Other than ftp, things seem to work OK. Below

I want to add the following route command route add -net 192.168.2.0/27 gw 192.168.2.3 via the normal network setup. The result should be the following routing table (the first line): 192.168.2.0/27 via 192.168.2.3 dev xenbr1 scope link 192.168.2.0/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.2.0/27 dev xenbr1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.3 192.168.1.0/24 dev xenbr0

Hi! I''m doing load balancing for 5 dsl lines, each one with a dsl router attached to a linux machine ethernet plug. The problem is that I''m adding 15 more dsl lines, and I don''t have enough PCI slots in the linux machine to sum up 20 ethernet plugs (I already have 2 quad ethernet cards). So I''m considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to a

Hello Everyone, I configured a server for a friend's Internet cafe. He has 2 ISPs. Here is what I did: ## NAT -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 ##

Hi all, I have read and done the LARTC HOW-to and almost everything work''s execpt from the inside network. When load balancing over the two access it only work on the linux router/nat machine 1) I am running stock mandrake kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdk and using stock shorewall config 2.0.8 2) I have two internet link and two internals link. Load balance setup work for the linux router/nat

Hi, I am new in LARTC 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 ...

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 command does not work: # ip ro

Hello guys! I have the following setup: Linux router acting as a gateway for several subnets in the LAN. The subnets are: 127.17.0.0/16 (will go out via NAT) 195.229.x.x/24 193.289.y.y/28 213.189.z.z/26 etc. There are about 20 subnets including the private Class B subnet. I want to mark the packets that will go on the Internet, and leave out the packets that move from one subnet to the

(found on dslr voip forum) http://www.freephoneproject.com/nexthop/ I think this is pretty cool. not too sure how stable/durable though, at least not until there are a lot more nodes providing service. also unsure of the legality vs. your average telco's consumer tos, but it's definitely not reselling. jeff pulver (crom bless him) seemed to be fairly amused, stuff like this fits

Hi List, I have been searching for the correct createrepo command to make a 6.4 respin. We have been doing this with previous versions using createrepo -u "media://$discinfo" -g ${DIR}/my_kickstart${VER}/comps.xml . Which had worked fine until now. Thanks, -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com

Alan& Akemi, Would it be possible to get CONFIG_ARPD turned on in the centosplus 6.x kernel? It is required to use opennhrp. See the link below where is was decided to turn it on in Fedora. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502844 -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com

Just wanted to let the people who have trouble with this know that I got it to work. I ditched my Gentoo install and fired up Fedora Core 4. But it was not working out of the box. When I updated to the latest kernel rpm 2.6.15 it worked like a charm :D So.. Fedora Core 4 with the latest 2.6 kernel ought to get you up and running. Hope this helps someone. My three weeks of anguish are

Hello, my linux show me that: server2 root # ip route add default scope global nexthop via 192.168.5.1 dev eth2 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.160.1 dev eth0 weight 1 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument What can I do???? Thanks Matias --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date:

Hello, Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3? Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!! -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com

Hi iproute2, I have a network to reach which is 192.168.2.0/24. It is a branch of the company. I have currently added a route to that network via one gateway ( 192.168.0.254) in following way. ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.0.254 Now, We got another gateway which is 192.168.0.250. Now I want to add a route to the same network which is 192.168.2.0/24 via this gateway ( 192.168.0.250)

Hi, I have a little problem to setup iproute in my network It looks like this: ---- ----- ------ R1 R2 R3 ---- ----- ------ | | | | | | ------------------------------- ETH1 ETH2 ETH3 ETH0 ETH4 -------------> DMZ ------------------------------ | |