similar to: problems with multipath routing

This was my very first post to the lartc mail list... but mailman replied saying there was a problem delivering the message to the recipients... and as I got NO replies at all, I guess no one received it. So I decided to resend it to see if there''s anyone to "bring me into the light" on this one. ;) Can anybody help here? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edmundo

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

You want multiple IP Addresses for email if you are hosting more than one domain. The reason is, everyone now checks for reverse DNS with email so you need a different public IP Address for each email domain. This way, all the reverse DNS translations will be unique. For apache, you can have multiple websites sharing the same IP Address as long as you don''t do anything with SSL. SSL

Hi, I have a linux router with 4 ethernet cards; eth0 through eth3. Basically, all I want to do is route all traffic from eth2 to eth0, and all traffic from eth1 to eth3. I''ve looked through the LARTC how-to, specifically at chapter 4, about multiple providers. However, I am still a bit confused, and not sure how to set up my routing tables, as my scenario differs from the one in the

Hi, I want to have several IP''s for my connection and each IP will have it''s own hostname. Now I want to serve a web server and mail server for each hostname/IP_addr pair on the same box in the internal LAN using one apache and one postfix daemon. If I do one SNAT and several DNATs then only the hostname which I SNAT the server to would work. Is the only way to do it

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

I have two T1s and I'd like to split my SIP traffic over the two. I am looking at this: http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html what bothers me about it is the note "Note that balancing will not be perfect, as it is route based, and routes are cached. This means that routes to often-used sites will always be over the same provider.". If all my traffic goes to the same

I currently have 4 DSL lines set up to load balance for my lan. The multipath works fine for connections the originate from the linux gateway (such as browsing the internet in KDE or using wget), but all the traffic from hosts on the lan is routed through only one of the DSL lines (as seen using ntop and ''ip route show cache'') . What would cause this to happen? Thanks Charlie

We''re trying to figure out how to have equal cost multipath routing using OSPF (quagga) and have come up with the following... Has anyone done something similar? -- How do you deal with incoming services (mail/web/etc) in such a scenario as below - And does anyone have any suggestions? There''s more detail below.... Diagram and overview: Network A connects to Core1 and Core2

Hi All, I have a linux router, configured with two internet connections and two lan segments. I''ve setup multipath routing as described in http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html My problem (I think) is that somehow the router will randomly choose incorrect routing paths for different hosts, for example: on my workstation (192.168.1.20), I ssh to a server I have on an

Hello! I have trouble with multipath routing. Those options are enabled in kernel: [*] IP: policy routing [*] IP: equal cost multipath [*] IP: equal cost multipath with caching support (EXPERIMENTAL) <*> MULTIPATH: round robin algorithm But issuing: ip r a 1.2.3.0/23 scope global equalize nexthop via 80.245.176.11 \ dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 80.245.176.13 dev eth0

Hi, I was reading some old posts on this list, and found this post (http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2005q1/014963.html) with a link for a ip route script that is basically what I need. My question is: when adding ip route rules, should I remove the traditional default gateway of my linux router? Regards, Thiago Vinhas

hi i recently searched in the mailinglist archive and found similar problems, whose solutions helped very much, thank you. i have the following scenario: a firewall with one lan interface eth0 10.1.1.1/24 and two uplink interfaces eth1 10.2.2.1/24 eth2 10.3.3.1/24 each uplink interface does SNAT: iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to-source 10.2.2.1 iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING

Ok folks, here goes.. I have been boggling with a problem for the past week, and still haven''t found a solution.. I''m trying to route traffic from two providers through a Linux machine. But that is not the problem. The ISP''s have provided me with a WAN IP class for both of the lines, to be routed into a DMZ where the machines a to respond to their respective

Hi all :) there is somekind of strange Routing problem that im getting with Linux-2.6.16 and iproute 2.6.16 , when i use command like : ip route add default nexthop via 1.1.1.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 1.1.1.2 dev eth1 all packets goes on 1.1.1.2 ( always last interface ) , whats is the problem ? this situation also tested with equalize flag , on two physical interface and etc ... -- Lady Luck

Hi, I think I found a problem in iproute or ubuntu kernel. I think that the "ip route get" returns wrong interface and gateway in an multipath routing environment on Ubuntu 6.06 LTS. I reported it also to launchpad as a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iproute/+bug/105521 The easiest way to reproduce it is to start an Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Live on a system with three

Hi, There''s some very silly mistake i''ve done in my configuration. I did by reading material on web. I''m enclosing my configuration script below. The problem is its not routing the trafic from other interface in case the first interface is down....which should be the wright case. Kindly please guide me what i can do to make it work..dynamically.. Also there is a

I have a private lan that is connected to the world via 3 dsl lines. I put up a linux box that handles all the dsl lines, lan gateway and all is working well...until...one of the dsl lines goes down. My routing table is: x.x.x.x dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src x.x.x.x x.x.x.x dev ppp1 proto kernel scope link src x.x.x.x x.x.x.x dev ppp2 proto kernel scope link src x.x.x.x

Hello. I have the problem that I have two gateways on the same subnet, 80.237.244.1 and 80.237.244.33. Both gateways are 100 MBit cards, so I have 2 times 100 MBit to the Internet. The NIC in the server is a gigabit-card, so this card is easy able to use both gateways for outgoing traffic. Now I just want to use both gateways for my outgoing traffic but no matter what I do, it doesnt work. I

Hello, I have set up a multipath gateway. System is a linux 2.4.29 kernel, iproute 20010824, iptables 1.2.11. here is the setup: firewall:/# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 100: from all lookup main 152: from all fwmark 10 lookup wan1 153: from all fwmark 20 lookup wan2 201: from 213.223.96.121 lookup wan1 202: from 82.236.230.217 lookup wan2 1000: from