similar to: Dead gateway detection - help needed

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

hi all, i am setting up a load balancing network with failover, i have applied julian patch, but whenever i try to establish a new connection from any client node, it gives me two entries in the routing cache for that destination with different or same interface for those entries, but off the two entries only one route path is used for the transmission. the ip rule/route are as follows,

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

Hello, We have debian with 2.4.19-pre8 kernel We active the load balancing with two ethernets to internet, wih the command: ip rule add from 128.1.3.1/32 lookup host_proxy preference 2060 ip route add default table host_proxy proto static nexthop via 80.25.175.1 dev eth0 \ nexthop via 212.170.14.1 dev eth1 when see the route

Hello, Like others which have posted to this list, I configured a load balancing router using Julian''s patches as described in "nano.txt" for multiple ISP links. It works perfectly when all ISPs are up and running. Here''s a sample diagram: ISP A ISP B | | | WAN | WAN

Hi all, ive been using the nano howto to load balance to adsl links for a good while now ive got our live server running kernel 2.6.11.6 and these links work fine. i set up another server same model of machine and used the same kernel config ( wanted to try some tos stuff out) 2.6.11.6 but this one doesnt balance properly. what ever i put in table 222 (which is looked at from all sources) it

There has been numerous threads etc regarding this but all that has left me is more than a little confused :-(. I have setup and environment consisting of two OpenVPN tunnels and wish to load balance at the packet level between them. I am currently running on Linux edm 2.4.21-20.EL.c0custom #2 Tue Oct 12 08:52:23 BST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux And have install Quagga at each end to provide

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

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) | |

Hi folks, i spent my whole day trying to set up my linux router using load balancing with multiple uplinks. I mainly focused on the nano howto, but somewhere I have a big mistake within my head. Basically the load-balancing is working, but not on a per-connection basis - just on a per packet basis. Practically this is not usable of course <g> But as far as I understood it should work..

Hello people: I''m new in the forum. I''ve implemented the script for load balancing of "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HowTo" and I''ve a question: When I run the next command : "ip route" I get the folowing information: -------------- 192.168.0.32/27 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.33 192.168.0.96/27 dev eth2 proto

Hi! I have many problems getting this thing to work. There''s a host with two network interfaces, where there are two routers to Internet in two separated networks. The host uses multihop routing for deciding to which router send the packets... but the routing decision is wrong made. Some packets with source address of one NIC, go to other network. I have a host with three NICs in it:

Hi There, I am also trying to do the same for my network. I have two links from different ISPs and I want to configure a failover and load balancing Linux router. I am facing same problem here, that how to detect link failure and let Linux box switch the gateway. I know it works when the first gateway is physically down and not reachable. But what to do if my link is up but there is problem

> Sergio Gelato wrote; >> I see that the rest of that function has an "if (problem) goto out;" >> after >> every krb5 library call. Doesn't that also introduce measurable time >> differences? Interesting. > I wrote a test case with expect to measure the time difference for valid and invalid user with the same workaround as said before. It seems to

Hello Shorewall list, I''m a happy Shorewall user since a few years now and everything works fine for me except one thing that I try to implement since a week, the multi-isp. I''ve downloaded the 2.4.0 Stable release yesterday and tried the RC2 since a week. My config is a Debian running a kernel 2.4.27 home made with the CONNMARK.diff patch applied I''m using 2 ISP,

Hi, We have been using Samba File Server (Version 4.3.11 Ubuntu 14.04 LTS) for quite sometime now. We recently installed Samba-AD (Samba AD Version 4.7.6) and made the file server a member of the Domain. Everything was fine till around 11:15 am yesterday. We just added one more share folder and gave access to three users and restarted Samba File Server services - smbd, nmbd and winbindd -

On 27 Oct 2015, at 09:48, Senthil Kumar <senthil.thecoder at gmail.com> wrote: > > Haven't worked on this yet, but I work on the gcc AVR backend (and binutils), and I'm very interested in this - I intend to work on it in my spare time. And do you have any comments / objections to Dylan becoming the code owner? David

Gentlefolk, First, many thanks to EVERYONE that tries so hard to make this advanced routing stuff useful to the "...rest of us"! You all rock! I have been prowling the archives of this list for an answer to my problem, and have seen some close situations, but no joy. Yet. I''ve got a relatively simple setup I''m trying to get working: we''ve got a

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