similar to: dead gateway detection/failover without load ballancing?

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

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

I''m still trying to figure out this problem, I appreciate any suggestions... What I''d like to do is have a second default gateway path that never gets taken unless the first one goes into the "dead" state. I have installed Julian''s patch and it works great for loadballanced connections using the nexthop code, but I would like to setup the second default route

Hi, I am using linux-2.4.26-9 kernel. I have patched the kernel with julians routes-2.4.26-9.diff patch. As per the nano.txt document i have configured my box with multiple internet links. When any of the gateway goes down, the dead gateway detection is not happening and all the route is not given to the avaliable link (another live link) . Can any one give me the solution for this

On 4/6/2019 12:21 AM, si-wei liu wrote: >>> >>> Stephen are you happy with this approach? >> I think it is the best solution for what you want to do. > > Since you're asking specifically, I tried what you suggested below. > >> Did you test with some things like Free Range Routing, > > Although there might be spurious warning (which is a check

Greetings to all, To start I’ll firstly lay down the foundation to what I have done so far and if those of you on the list can provide further insight, tips, links etc. This scenario consists of 2 firewalls (both running Debian “etch”), 2 Cisco routers (unsure of model numbers) connected together like so in the diagram below. ----------------------- | Uplink Provider |

Hello Will someonekindly update me on whether julians''s patch is now a standard feature on the linux kernel release? Is there a decision to provide the same feature but re-worked in some way (i.e out-of the-box dead gateway detection for example) in a future release. Or do I still need to patch the latest kernel release, and do all the "stuff" as explained in the

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

Hello I wonder if anyone here could possibly help me? I am using Samba version 4.5.16-Debian (version information taken from sudo smbstatus) on Raspbian and attempting to prototype some future network infrastructure with a couple of Raspberry Pis. So far I have sucessfully created a Samba 4 AD DC ad1.samdom.example.com. I have successfully joined my Windows 10 dekstop client to the SAMDOM

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

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

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

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

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

dhcpcd requires an interface name as parameter to work. We are now getting it from /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ folder children. dhclient on Debian also has the problem, thus use the guessed interface name for it too. --- appliance/init | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/appliance/init b/appliance/init index cca62e7..d5a428d 100755 --- a/appliance/init +++

Hello, I have a Gentoo Linux guest, which was working very well with the past xm tool stack. Since the migration to xen-4.1.1 and to the new xl tool stack, I have a problem for the IP assignation. Actually, when dhcpcd starts at boot time the IP address is not correctly assigned. This also happens if I perform "dhcpcd eth0" once I''ve accessed to the guest shell. I

dhcpcd requires an interface name as parameter to work. We are now getting it from /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ folder children. --- appliance/init | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/appliance/init b/appliance/init index cca62e7..ef18959 100755 --- a/appliance/init +++ b/appliance/init @@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ if test "$guestfs_network" = 1; then if

I'm trying to get an Archlinux guest running on a Archlinux host. Everything works except ethernet. When I boot the host, --- # dmesg |tail [ 8.265493] Bridge firewalling registered [ 8.514547] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): virbr0: link is not ready [ 8.645303] ip6_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team --- Then I do --- # virsh -c lxc:/// start gitolite Domain gitolite started #

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:53:45PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > The script won't fail, but the network won't work. What's the > > alternative on SuSE? > > I think that would be dhcpcd, which is also used by NetworkManager. It turns out we don't package dhcpcd in Fedora. If we did the following, would it

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:28:56AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > On 03/13/2015 11:13 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > >Yes, the log indicates name resolution not working. Please try the > >diagnosis steps that I outlined in: > > > >https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-March/msg00075.html > > Sorry, I somehow missed the above message. > > $