similar to: ip route command query regarding multipath

Hi. I''ve trying to balance outgoing traffic by using multipath routes, but I can''t get it to work. Only one of the routes are used. I''m adding the route like this: ip route add table 101 default \ nexthop via X.X.X.X nexthop via Y.Y.Y.Y It shows up the routing table like this: default nexthop via X.X.X.X dev vlan110 weight 1

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

I have a 2.6.12(ubuntu-patchset), kernel recompiled with this routing options: [*] IP: advanced router [*] IP: policy routing [*] IP: equal cost multipath Load balancing is working great, but i have problems whits long term tcp flows (like msn-messenger or vpns or any other type of long term ip based conection). I assume this is because after a period of time, the per-host

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

Greetings, I''m trying to set up some sort of load-balancing on a Linux (Trustix) gateway by using multipath routes, however I''m stuck with some problems. The idea is that this gateway (odd as it may seem) only has one external interface, which should route packets to two different gateways (Ciscos). The gateway''s external interface and the routers are all on the same

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

I have 2 cable modems on a server (Linux 2.6.22). I use multipath, so the route is something like this: default nexthop via 201.6.102.1 dev eth1 weight 256 nexthop via 201.6.107.1 dev eth2 weight 128 The first one (eth1) has a higher priority, then when it goes down, I can "ifconfig" the interface eth1 down and Linux automatically detects the "dead"

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, I am currently using a 2.4 kernel with multipath routing patch v5 to send outgoing packets in a 1:1 ratio over two lines, however the lines do not actually have equal upstream bandwidth, one has 800kbit and the other 600kbit, so ideally I would like to send packets in a 4:3 ratio, is there anything in 2.6 or a patch for 2.4 that could be used to do that? I tried this ugly hack but it

I have question about multipath routing. I am running a 2.6.7 kernel (gentoo). I have a route with three nexthops on the same interface. I see a different nexthop being picked for different destination addresses. All is fine. Now if one of the nexthop goes down (arp entry times out and arp request doesnt get a response), does it remove the nexthop from contention and only use the remaining two

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

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:28:47AM +0100, <Alpt>: ~> On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 11:29:21AM +0100, <Alpt>: ~> ~> The multipath code creates new cached routes. Since ~> ~> after connect the socket is "connected", i.e. saddr and ~> ~> daddr are known and they are always provided when resolving ~> ~> route ~> ~> ~> ~> So, the connected

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

Hi All, I''ve configured a mutlipath as detailed in the HOWTO. For the most part it''s great, but when the cheap DSL line drops it''s connection, as it regularly does, the outbound routing doesn''t automatically use the remaining path for internal outbound traffic. Ip route show lists no default route once the default path dies, and if the ppp connection is

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 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

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

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, 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 everybody, I''m not so glad because of the error I describe in the subject. I have two internet lines and I want to do equal cost loadbalancing on the two uplinks to the internet. This is what I do: ip route add 200.200.200.0/24 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add default via 200.200.200.254 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add 100.100.100.0/24 dev eth1 table 100 ip route add default via