similar to: Logging dropped out-of-sequence packets on a load balanced router

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

Dear List, Another noob question today! I''ve been using iproute2 for a long time now to manage bandwidth and directing traffic over multiple interfaces based on source routing. I am working on a test-project at the moment, in witch I want to actually bundle (''trunk'') some connections. In the LARTC-manual I found the chapter about TEQL (see chapter 10). The situation

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, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

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 recently updated one of my systems from CentOs 6.4 to CentOS 6.5. This systems is used as a RIPv2 routing server with quagga which is the termination point of some GRE tunnels. While running CentOS 6.4 I see the multicast packages arriving at the eth0 and the GRE tunnel interface. While running under CentOs 6.5 I can see the multicast packages arriving at the eth0 but not on the GRE

First of all, I''d like to thank Andy Furniss for his direction and for helping me get a working example up and running. For the following set up to work, you will need a linux computer at the ISP (server), a linux computer at the client location (client), and some a public range of IP''s you plan to send down to your client. (as this configuration involves patching the linux

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, I am tring to us ip route to load balance between two interfaces. ip route add equalize 10.200.1.0/24 nexthop via 10.200.0.2 dev neta nexthop via 10.200.0.2 dev neta2 Where neta and neta2 are gre tunnels. Testing show that packets travel in a single sided manner. Do I need to use the multipath (IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED) module? thx jason

Hi, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

A little while ago I changed my UPS to Leibert and installed NUT. Everything worked as expected. Today I tried to use the MultiLink Viewer icon from the desktop, but it simply accepted the root password without apparently doing anything. I can run the viewer directly (as root) from a file manager. The icon is owned by me, but the application is set to run as root. I suspect that the

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, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

Hi List, FYI. We have been using CentOS 6.4 and have 2 vpn/gre tunnels to separate cisco rtrs using ospf. with kernel 2.6.32-358.23.2 We have upgraded to 6.5 bit using kernel 2.6.32-431.5.1 and the exact same configuration scripts for our vpn/gre tunnels. What I see is the first gre tunnel works great and I get an ospf neighbor. The second tunnel comes up and I can ping across it and I see

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

I''ve read through the nano documentation, and it says that it wont handle scenarios where the main traffic is input. Also, I''ve read through the linuxvirtualserver documentation, and i dont think that applies to me either, as that set up intercepts traffic and manipulates the final destination IP and port for the traffic. What I would like to do is 1) from the ISP standpoint,

Can anyone tell me under what circumstances checksum offloading might cause problems? I have the following configuration: 1. Remote router (OpenWRT) with PC''s on the LAN and a GRE tunnel to the head office 2. Central office with a server running Xen 3.1.2. Dom0 is doing PPPoE and is terminating the GRE tunnels 3. Main corporate application running on a Linux DomU, accessed via ssh. The

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

Dear Gurus, Can you please help/guide me with the following: I have 3 NICs in my Linux RH 9 (kernel 2.4.20) machine. (eth0, eth1 and eth2). I want to setup a 'link equalizer' (teql) between eth0 and eth1. This I am able to do with the required commands (using the utilities 'tc' and 'ip'). Now I need to setup a bridge between eth2 and this new interface

Hi Guys, Here is our patch to allow broadcast packets over a GRE tunnel. Hopefully it might be accepted into the source someday. You need to enabled bridging and GRE tunnels in your kernel. No other options are required. The gre patch determines what type of protocol type to put in the GRE header based on the whether the packet is forwarded from a bridge or not. To use the patch: # Create