similar to: simple routing protocol for VPN redundancy?

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

(I know that what I''m wanting to do can be done, but for some reason I can not get it to work for the life of me. I think I have been staring at it too long and too closely.) I have two different internet connections from two cooperating ISPs. I also have a small 8 block of IPs that are globally routable that both ISPs will route to me via my world facing globally routable IPs that

hi all, We are using squid 25s1 with kernel 2.4.19 and iproute2(+julian''s Pathes) with the following acl.. acl short_path dst 128.0.0.0/8 tcp_outgoing_address myIp2nd short_path we are linked to 2 isp--one having satelite & the other OFC. We want the above mentioned network to go thru OFC(ispB) as the sibling resides there. But when i use squidclient mgr:server_list

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, A friend of mine has 2 lines of 512kbps terminated in two Linux boxes. He now want to remove those 2 boxes and have some device which will loadbalance the two ISPs and also have a failover arrangement. But he has agreed to give me a chance to do it on Linux for my own satisfication. Is this easy to do with lartc? How do I go about it exactly? I have very less time to do it since his

Deepak, i think you can look to this option too : http://sourceforge.net/projects/rcc/ The project is in developpment....but within 1 or 2 weeks i think it will be a good project....especially who linux network''s owner. rgds, Erwan le Doeuff _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO:

Hello, I have finished setting up the load balancer with IPROUTE ... also patch the kernel to support DGD and now it''s working fine with the valuable guide at LARTC website, Julian Anastasov, and the kind people in this mailing list. Now I would like to launch a web server and a ftp server to the public but I''m stuck into a problem and really need your help. Currently internal

Hello, I have configured a load balancing router using Julian''s patches and as described in "nano.txt" for two ISP links as shown below. ISP 1 ISP 2 . . | | | | | | | WAN

Hi, Please suppose following config: Two external interfaces for two different providers On each of them configured NAT for specific IP addr. ie. 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 1.1.1.30/30 brd 1.1.1.31 scope global eth2 6: eth4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 2.2.2.66/27 brd 2.2.2.95 scope global eth4 On eth2

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"

Im getting into tc. How can I control P2P (peer to peer) traffic??? which filters??? any ideas??? Hugonik

Can someone tell me what concept I''m missing here. The setup is simple. I have two default routes after ifup operations. I use "ip route del" to remove one, but then decide to add it back. The attempt is refused. Why? # ip route ls 66.95.83.208/28 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.95.83.210 65.84.205.96/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 65.84.205.104

Hi all! After that good thread "DGD patch not detecting dead gateway" I was able to set up a Load Balancing with ping based DGD (without Julian Anastasov patch). But now I''m facing a new problem and tried some options, with only partial solutions. I made a script based on http://www.mail-archive.com/lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl/msg16257.html (Thank you Manish Kathuria),

Hi all I would like to know what happens with a dead router in a multipath configuration like the one presented http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html Do i need to monitor dead routers and reconfigure ? Guillermo

I have a doubt. If you use such a script monitoring the link status with ping and then reconfiguring, why do you need the DGD patch? You need to do some reconfiguration (change multipath to a single default route) anyway if you use the script, right? Also, the DGD patch uses src to lookup the routing table entry, but if you have a dynamic IP for the WAN interface (PPPoE, DHCP etc), this approach

does anyone know a way to shape outgoing/upload traffic per ip? I have a network and i want to limit the upload with 100kbit per user. Ex: 192.168.1.20 ----> 1024kbit-DOWN / 100kbit-UP 192.168.1.21 ----> 1024kbit-DOWN / 100kbit-UP and so on....... Ive tried CBQ and HTB, but couldnt get is right. the only thing that I did in upload bases was: "tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root tbf rate

Hi All, I have one query which may be quite silly. My Linux internet gateway has Dead Gateway Detetction patches applied to it''s kernel. If I am right, the DGD patches allow us to add static routes which are not destroyed even if the interface or the link goes down. I want to know whether, with the DGD patches applied, the traffic shaping rules defined using tc, added to an interface

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=460 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org

Than my question is this? Now that I have switchtowerized and migrate enabled my app I can start down a new path if need be on a different OS as the base of the system. We have already tried CentOS and found it to have more issues than those mentioned about fedora and through it away faster than one could shake a stick at. Here are our requirements for a stage/dev box and production:

On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Even if we single out TBAA, recall that TBAA was one of the main > motivations for the design of MDNodes -- it's in the second sentance, > and most of the last paragraph, of > http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/extensible-metadata-in-llvm-ir.html ... and in last paragraph the author says ... "This use of metadata is also safe,