similar to: A multi-isp with priority routing and GRE tunneling network problem.

Hi all I need to use three 512 kbps aDSL internet connections, in a load-sharing, link-failover scenario. Presently I am using Ipcop with a single DSL. Now, I seem to have two options...one..an Edimax quad wan port adsl router, with firewalling and NAT and second install a minimal linux distro for routing...something on the lines of LARTC....and keep NATTING, IDS & Firewalling on the linux

Hi All, As it is written in the "Linux 2.4 Advanced Routing HOWTO" GRE tunneling has some benefits compare to IP-in-IP, on of it benefits is the ability to transport multicast traffic through a GRE tunnel. I used the mrouted daemon and I know that the daemon supports tunneling but I don''t want to use its tunneling method. Assuming I have gre0 as my tunneling device I did the

Hi, I'm still on 1.4 and am wondering if 1.6 would fix an issue for me. Specifically, I have been given the impression that, in contrast to 1.4 which always sends packet from the default IP (if the server has multiple IPs), 1.6 sends packets back from the IP address that was used by the peers. i.e.: On a server with two NICs: eth0 192.168.1.2 eth1 192.168.1.3 If a peer registers

[ I hope this isn''t a dupe. Evolution crashed on my last send and I see nothing in my logs that leads me to believe the mail made it out before the crash ] Well, it probably is working. I''m probably just misunderstanding something. Given routing rules that look like this: 0: from all lookup local 10000: from all fwmark 0x40 lookup CGCO 10001: from all fwmark 0x80

Hi, Does anyone tried to get ipip or gre tunnel behind NAT environments. ? i''m trying to make both side tunneling with ipip or gre with private address just like belows.. A -------------------FIRWWAL -------------------INET ------------------- B PRIVATE PUBLIC PUBLIC (10.100.0.1) (211.xxx.xxx.xxx) (

I have three ethernet card and two of them connected to diffrent ISP and has diffrent gateways. And one ethernet card is connected to local lan. I have installed iptables and configured the firwall to work as nat gateway for the users. Now I want to route only mail traffic to the perticular ISP and which I am not able to do it. I have done iproute configuration what ever lartc said. But still I

Hello! I have a problem. May be here exist anyone who has encountered with the following problem. I have a router which is connected to 2 ISP from external side and one LAN internal interface. The feature is that the one ISP allocates a subnet xxx.xxx.xxx.160/28 for me but I split it into two subnets xxx.xxx.xxx.160/29 and xxx.xxx.xxx.168/29 and assign the latter to the internal interface. Also

Hello everyone, I have a problem regarding gre tunneling, I have two linux box both of them has a private network and the linux A is connected to the internet via wireless radio and the other linux B is connected to the internet via lease line. Here is the setup of my two linux box Linux A eth0 = 203.189.x.1 (internet) eth1 = 192.168.1.1 (going to hub private network) Linux B eth0 = 205.198.x.1

Hello,I have single linux router ( fedora core 1 ), 2 ISP, 1 internal network,1 IP space from every ISP My scenario: eth0 1.0.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.252 -> ISP 1 eth1 2.0.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.252 -> ISP 2 eth2 1.0.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 -> IP space from ISP1 eth3 2.0.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 -> IP space from ISP2 Config I try: /etc/iproute2/rt_tables: 10 isp1 20 isp2 ip

/-----------------------\ | | |eth0 |eth0 |-------| |-------| | |eth1 eth1 | | -------- A |____ _______| B |----- | | \ / | | --------| | | --------| | | | |

I''m getting an error when shorewall is trying to add the default routes for my multi-isp configuration. I''ve attached a shorewall dump... If anyone can give some input I''d appreciate it. RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument ERROR: Command "ip -4 route replace default scope global table 254 nexthop via 67.110.119.245 dev eth3 weight 1 nexthop via 66.29.181.113

I think I''ve figured out the routing for multiple ISP''s and DNAT. For ths who might be interesed, I''ve uploaded some notes to: http://www.heronforge.net/redhat/node17.html Let me know of you see any errors or a better way... -- Stephen Carville <stephen@totalflood.com> Unix and Network Admin Nationwide Totalflood 6033 W. Century Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90045

I''m trying to plan out a new configuration for our new multi-isp setup. Part of what is confusing me is the asymmetry between the two setups. Our current ISP provides us with a router and our first public IP is used by its LAN port. Our new provider is not providing a router and I want to user our shorewall box as the router. I have 4 ports on it (currently configured for local,

Hello, I connected the network 192.168.1.0 with 192.168.2.0 over the internet trough a GRE-Tunnel. I don''t know if I set up all things right: The client-pcs in both networks have a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 and 192.168.2.x''s default gateway is the server wich has started the tunnel. The 192.168.1.x''s default gateway is 192.168.1.250 wich routes traffic destinated to

Hi, I have established two connections to the same ISP. After that ip route list showed this: 195.14.247.94 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 81.173.141.207 195.14.247.94 dev ppp1 proto kernel scope link src 81.173.237.84 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.1 default via 195.14.247.94 dev ppp0 I want 192.168.0.2 to connect to the internet by ppp1 and all

Dear all, I have a multi-isp setup using DSL and leased line config for my firewall box using shorewall version 4.0.13. Clients behind the router can connect to the net without problem, they are always routed via the DSL (BusinessOne) provider. The problem i am having is that sometimes when the firewall tries to connect to the internet the connections time out (apt-get update, ping,

Remember that when a network interface goes down, the kernel automatically deletes all routes through that interface. That includes routes in alternate routing tables that Shorewall has added as part of the multi-ISP feature. Bottom line: Shorewall must be restarted if any interface specified in the /etc/shorewall/providers file goes down then comes back up. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is

Hi list, i have the following situ 2 ISP's one internal network. Load Balancing between the ISP's (with mpath) I want to route speciffic traffic over only one of the ISP's more specifficaly the ICQ traffic i have the following configs iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 5190 -j MARK --set-mark 0x5190 ip ru a from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx prio 201 t isp_rules1 ip ru a fwmark

Hi, I'm using IPSEC in a multi-ISP configuration, lsm 0.131, Kernel 2.6.32, ipsec-tools 0.8.0 This worked fine with Shorewall/Shorewall-Lite 4.5.7. After updating Shorewall to 4.5.8 the routing of ESP packets doesn't work. If I change the Providers.pm file and add connmark => "! --mark 0/$mask" like before in Shorewall 4.5.7 than everything works fine. add_ijump

Hi! Can I create the unnumbered GRE tunnel with iproute2 utility? Can someone provide me a link/howto/example_config how to do it? The topology is one tunnel between two linux boxes: -- eth1-|__|-eth0 <-------------> eth0-|__|-eth1 -- I''m trying now with: ip tu add tun1 mode gre local loc.IP remote rem.IP ttl 255 dev eth0 ip addr add tun1 0.0.0.0 ip link set tun1 up but it