similar to: dead router detection

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

(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

Greetings to all, To start I’ll firstly lay down the foundation to what I have done so far and if those of you on the list can provide further insight, tips, links etc. This scenario consists of 2 firewalls (both running Debian “etch”), 2 Cisco routers (unsure of model numbers) connected together like so in the diagram below. ----------------------- | Uplink Provider |

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

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@mailman.ds9a.nl/msg16257.html (Thank you Manish Kathuria),

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

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 have a linux machine with a SIP server (Asterisk) and 2 WAN interfaces (NATed) configured to do load balancing. I experienced problems with the SIP/RTP protocols and load balancing, because when initiating a call to an external SIP Host, a new RTP flow starts from the server to the Host, that sometimes uses another default route (due to the nexthop configuration). As i have two

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

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

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

Hello i have some problems on 2.6.14 kernel dummy and iproute :) i have server with 2 nics : eth0 <> inet eth1 <> lan dummy0 (i want to shape incoming traffic from lan machine on this interface) my config: tc qdisc del dev dummy0 root tc qdisc add dev dummy0 root handle 1: htb tc class add dev dummy0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 100kbit ceil 100kbit tc class add dev dummy0

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

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

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, I have a linux box loaded with RH7.1, 3 ethernet with load balance on 2 ISP. In theory, if one router stop to work (I have turn off for this try), the Dead Gateway Detection, would re-instradate alla traffic on other link. This not work...someone have more experience on this? Giorgio Biondi

Can someone verify that using fw as a filter in iproute2-2.6.11-050330 is broken. Doesn''t seem to work in any case and I saw an earlier post that would lead me to believe this is the case. If so does anyone have a temporary fix? Thanks, Troy

Hi, I have searched the archives on the topic, and it seems that the list gurus favor load balancing to be done in the kernel as opposed to other means. I have been using a home-grown approach, which splits traffic based on `-m statistic --mode random --probability X`, then CONNMARKs the individual connections and the kernel happily routes them. I understand that for > 2 links it will become

I am developing load balancing router, But I have a question about fail over. The follow diagram is my test environment and scripts. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Environment Setting PC1(192.168.10.2) | (LAN) | PC2-eth2(192.168.10.1) +

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