similar to: Are There better EQL devices

Hello list, I''d like to use teql with tap devices (two OpenVPN tunnels). This works, but the doc /usr/src/linux-<version>/net/sched/sch_teql.c says: "1. Slave devices MUST be active devices, i.e., they must raise the tbusy signal and generate EOI events. If you want to equalize virtual devices like tunnels, use a normal eql device." I can''t find if tap devices

HI, I have a problem with nat on teql devices, i set the nat on iptables and he''s accept well , but don''t work ... he don''t masq or nat anything, i try using -j MASQUERADE too, but without results.. i m using the command: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 10.0.0.0/24 --to ip-teql-device On kernel 2.2x with ipchains works great.

Thanks in advance! Summary: when I load netem and teql together, teql doesn''t work correctly. (If I load teql only, everything is fine) I loaded both netem and teql. Netem is associated with eth0, and teql is associated with both eth0 and eth1. But traffic only goes out of eth1. Attached are the commands that I used to configure teql and netem (on machine 1), and commands to

Hi all, I want to implement a "weighted" teql that can send packets to interfaces based on their "weights". To do this, I want to create multiple virtual network interfaces, and add them to teql. Since teql will send packets to each interface in a round-robin way, a weighted teql is achieved (my guess). I already have two physical network interfaces, eth0 and eth1. I

Hi everybody, I want to do the following setup : | | Tun1 - Link 1 | Tun1 | | Router A | teql | INTERNET Link - | | teql |router B | | Tun2 - Link 2 | Tun2 | | This should permit to agregate Link 1 and Link 2 (less the cost of the encapsulation). The two tunnels are GRE ip tunnel. It seems to work fine

Hi! We have 2 lines with 2 mbit each. I have to set up a configuration like the following: - if both lines work, grant 3 mbit to a web service running on a server in our DMZ - if one line fails, grant all the remaining 2 mbit to that service - if the service doesn''t need all the bandwidth, use the remaining for other services I read through the HOWTO, and figured out that I need TEQL to

Hello, I''m confused why the spec described below is failing. Other simple comparison specs are passing fine for the same model. The code is working accordingly when I test it through the console, I''m just having difficulty getting this spec to work. Any pointers would be appreciated. Failure message: ''Address fetch and geocode should extract department and write to

Hello, After reading the excellent HOWTO I got traffic shaping working nicely over ethernet devices on a test setup. I can''t put this setup live though, because our main firewall has three 2mbit hdlc interfaces instead of a single device. We are using multipath routing using iproute2 nexthop at the moment, and that works fine for firewalling. But now I have a need for shaping and

Hi, ------- ------- | B |eth0---------eth0| C | | |eth1---------eth1| | ------- ------- In an attempt to have the install setup to increase speed and/or reliability of a link between two linux machines (for example in case of a wireless connection), I read that there were more than one solution, for example the old eql driver, bonding

HI All. I have a linux box connected to a switch network with 2 network interfaces, how would I able to ''trunk'' these 2 interfaces? options I can see are: - ethernet bonding - iproute2? - teql Which one are the best to use? I''m curretly having problem with ethernet bonding, my setup are as follow: ip add: 192.168.10.30/24 I do: # modprobe bonding # ip addr add

Hello, LARTC mailing readers, I hope u can help with this mysterious issue i''m having with my linux box acting as a router. Scenario: Linux running 2.6.8.1 /w julians patches Latest iproute (iproute2-ss040702) 4 NICS ----------------- | x eth0 (63.43.x.x) network mask (255.255.240.0) | | x eth1 (63.43.x.x)

Hello, LARTC mailing readers, I hope u can help with this mysterious issue i''m having with my linux box acting as a router. Scenario: Linux running 2.6.8.1 /w julians patches /w support for multipath routing Latest iproute (iproute2-ss040702) 4 NICS ----------------- | x eth0 (63.43.x.x) network mask (255.255.240.0) | |

I am measuring the performance of one TCP connection over two symmetric paths. Packets are sent to two paths alternatively. I found that when the latency of each path are within 1ms, the overall TCP throughput is the *sum* of the throughput of the two paths. However, when the latency of the two paths increases to 5ms, the overal TCP throughput drops to the throughput of a *single* path. Has anyone

Greetings from a newbie! (Well, to this list anyway) I''m having a problem and I hope someone here might be able to help... I am strongly expecting an answer along the lines of "upgrade to v2.4.x", but I would REALLY preffer to avoid that for now... The setup: "Home brewed" v2.2.24 (will patch to v2.2.25 later today) with the DS8 patch applied. Currently

Previously I attempted load balancing between 3 interfaces with limited bandwidth but a common gateway with much more bandwidth using QoS and teql. This had little to know luck because routes never seemed to come out right. Someone pointed me in the direction of http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt to try and set up a multipath route instead. After setting this up it seems that all of the routes are

hi i am running Debian/GNU Linux with 2.4.26 kernel and radius server my kernel conf looks like this <*> Packet socket [ ] Packet socket: mmapped IO < > Netlink device emulation [*] Network packet filtering (replaces ipchains) [*] Network packet filtering debugging [ ] Socket Filtering <*> Unix domain sockets [*] TCP/IP networking [*] IP: multicasting [*] IP: advanced

Hi there, I have two ethernet connections of 2Mbit/s each and I''m trying to add them together to one 4Mbit/s connection but I cannot get more than approximate 1Mbit/s! My setup: I have a LAN (10.2.18.0/24), connected to a larger network (10.0.0.0/8) by two WAN-connections with 2Mbit/s each. On each end I have a Linux router. I first setup the routers to use TEQL with one of the

TEQL and Subnet problem I have a network topology shown below, and I am trying to use TEQL. My problem is: When I ping to P3.teql0 from P2 ("[P2]# ping 16.119.144.66"), the traffic can never go from P2.eth1, and all traffic only goes to P1.eth0. What P2.eth1 (16.119.144.33) did is broadcasting an ARP asking for the MAC address of 16.119.144.66, although I have specified the route to

Okay here is my setup: Gentoo Box running 2.6.4 w/ 4 NICs 1 NIC is for internal network 3 NICs are for external network The machine has a static address assigned to the internal network nic. This nic runs dhcp and dns forwarding. The other 3 nics have external dynamic IP addresses. All will have the same gateway. There are 3 NICs because this is a very large pipe, that will only allocate a

Hullo :) I appear to be having a common problem, but the standard fix hasn''t worked for me :/ I''m using a 2.4.23 kernel, with QoS options thusly: # QoS and/or fair queueing # CONFIG_NET_SCHED=y # CONFIG_NET_SCH_CBQ is not set CONFIG_NET_SCH_HTB=m # CONFIG_NET_SCH_CSZ is not set CONFIG_NET_SCH_PRIO=m CONFIG_NET_SCH_RED=m CONFIG_NET_SCH_SFQ=m CONFIG_NET_SCH_TEQL=m