similar to: Two routing cache entries

hi all, i am setting up a load balancing netwrok with failover, i have applied julian patch, but whenever i try to traceroute from any client node, it gives me two entries for that destination, but i get different interface for that entries, so it doesn''t forward my requests, i have done masquerading for client nodes, the ip rule/route are as follows, ip rule add prio 222 table

Hello all I continue fighting with load balancing, I though it was easier :-/ Here is the script with my configuration #!/bin/sh IFI=eth0 IPI=192.168.10.155 NMI=24 IFE1=eth1 IPE1=192.168.1.128 NWE1=192.168.1.0 NME1=24 BRD1=192.168.1.255 GWE1=192.168.1.1 IFE2=eth2 IPE2=192.168.254.128 NWE2=192.168.254.0 NME2=24 BRD2=192.168.254.255 GWE2=192.168.254.254 ip link set $IFI up ip addr add

Hi, I have a problem with my script. I have a debian with a kernel 2.6.8 patched with patch-2.6.8-ja1.diff of nano.txt site. I have 3 internet connections : - eth1 : - ip : 192.168.8.75 - gw : 192.168.8.73 - eth2 : - ip : 192.168.1.200 - gw : 192.168.1.2 - eth3 : - ip : 192.168.2.200 - gw : 192.168.2.1 and my eth0 for

Hello all, I am having some difficults to make a routing rule work. I want that every P2P packages go to one interface (eth2 - cheaper link) nad the rest of the traffic go to another interface (eth0 - frame relay very expensive). I am using this script to make the mark and balance: ------- #!/bin/bash IPT="/usr/local/sbin/iptables" IP="/sbin/ip" #---- # Declara redes #----

Hi all, I have implemented load balancing using the tutorial http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt ..The traffic is going through both my external network interface. I have some questions regarding this: ip route add default table 222 proto static \ nexthop via GWE1 dev IFE1 \ nexthop via GWE2 dev IFE2 The author explains the kernel chooses both the interfaces alternately (weight being 1

First of all, thanks to this group for the awesome documentation on the load balancing and thanks to http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt. I''m now balancing a DSL and Cable Modem account (DSL is 1.5/768 and Cable is 3/256). It took some work but I learned a lot along the way. For a few sites that I tend to download a lot from, I found that I could configure Flashget

Hello Im having a problem similar to sawar Here is my configuration --------------eth1---192.168.1.128---------- -------------192.168.1.1 ISP router 1 | my | ---Eth0---192.168.10.157----| | | linux |

Hi list gurus, long story short we have firewall machine which is the default gateway for our clients and firewall send traffic out to Internet via cisco router. On cisco we have two serial interfaces 1Mb and 2Mb. On firewall #route add default gw xxx.xxx.xx.xxx (for 2mb) #route add default gw xxx.xxx.xx.xxx (for 1mb) and the same rule for Imb link route packets via these two links. However I

hi currently i am using redhat enterprise linux 5 for multi gateway routing with 5 internet connection on static ip and all is working fine, now i want to use 5 adsl lines with dynamic ip but there is no doc. in lartc and in nano''s how to for dynamic ip, so can u plz help me out thanks in advance nilesh chouhan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?

Hello, On Mon, 17 May 2004, Charles-Etienne.Dube wrote: > I did some tests with 2 cable modems, but now it is installed in a production > environment with 4 cable modems. At first, everything seemed to work fine.. > But now I had a couple of users tell me that some web pages were > not available while others were, and it semms to be a masquerading problem > since when I

Hello, I am looking for an answer. I am doind some thing like a loadshare betwen two backbones. To one of them I send all p2p, msn and irc packages and to the other one I send the rest I have. The problem I am facing is about prio at tables: ip rule add fwmark 1 table 201 prio 202 This is the rule I make. This is, I thinbk, working fine. The default gateway is set into table

I have centos 6 running kvm. IPv4 works perfectly works. But I am having some problem with ipv6, looks like its bridge routing problem but stuck. here are my bridge detail: bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0 8000.000af75613f2 no eth1 vnet1 br4 8000.000af75613f0 no eth0 ip -6 route shows : unreachable ::/96 dev lo metric 1024 error -101 mtu 65536 advmss 65476 hoplimit 4294967295

+---------------+ +----+ ISP A | | | |-----------------| | +----+ | | +------+ | ROUTER | NET C | www | | LINUX |----------------| |

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:

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

Hi, my box is connected to 3 networks, eth0 eth1 wlan0. I want "my" traffic to go via wlan0 and everything from eth1 NATed to eth0: eth0 192.168.1.10/24 eth1 172.16.1.1/12 wlan0 192.168.10.190/24 I first tried this with two single hosts: iptables -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o eth0 -t nat iptables -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o wlan0 -t nat echo 200 Forw >>

hello all, previously i had some problems setting up a load balancing network, but now after re-applying the julian patch, it works good, but my doubt is that if we have statically provided and IP Rule for some network to use some particular gateway like follows, ip rule add prio 203 from 192.168.1.0/24 table 203 ip route add default via 203.88.135.213 dev eth1 src 203.88.135.212 proto static

hi: *I have this 2 boxes set up like this:* 2020::2/128 2020::254/128 3030::254/128 192.168.0.2/24 192.168.0.254/24 192.168.30.254/24 +-------+ eth0 eth3 +-------+ | |=======================| | eth1 | A | | B |---- | | | |

* sorry for the 2 previous schemas, they came out a mess. I hope this one is understandable. hi: I have this 2 boxes set up like this: 2020::2/128 2020::254/128 3030::254/128 192.168.0.2/24 192.168.0.254/24 192.168.30.254/24 +-------+ eth0 eth3 +-------+ | |==================== | | eth1 | A | | B | ---- | |

* sorry for the other schema, it came out a mess. I hope this one is understandable. hi: I have this 2 boxes set up like this: 2020::2/128 2020::254/128 3030::254/128 192.168.0.2/24 192.168.0.254/24 192.168.30.254/24 +-------+ eth0 eth3 +-------+