similar to: trouble with nexthop when I try to load balance

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

Hi, I have a linux box connected to two leased lines as follows: _/\__/\_ / \ +--------+ +------------+ ( Internet )----+ Router | | SMTP server| \_ __ _/ +----+---+ +------+-----+ \/ \/ | 200.200.200.254 | 100.100.100.2\ -+-------+----- ... ---------+-- 100.100.100.1\ | 200.200.200.1 +-+--+--+ | Linux | +---+---+ _/\__/\_ 192.168.1.1 |

Just wanted to let the people who have trouble with this know that I got it to work. I ditched my Gentoo install and fired up Fedora Core 4. But it was not working out of the box. When I updated to the latest kernel rpm 2.6.15 it worked like a charm :D So.. Fedora Core 4 with the latest 2.6 kernel ought to get you up and running. Hope this helps someone. My three weeks of anguish are

Hello guys! I have the following setup: Linux router acting as a gateway for several subnets in the LAN. The subnets are: 127.17.0.0/16 (will go out via NAT) 195.229.x.x/24 193.289.y.y/28 213.189.z.z/26 etc. There are about 20 subnets including the private Class B subnet. I want to mark the packets that will go on the Internet, and leave out the packets that move from one subnet to the

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

(found on dslr voip forum) http://www.freephoneproject.com/nexthop/ I think this is pretty cool. not too sure how stable/durable though, at least not until there are a lot more nodes providing service. also unsure of the legality vs. your average telco's consumer tos, but it's definitely not reselling. jeff pulver (crom bless him) seemed to be fairly amused, stuff like this fits

Hello Everyone, I configured a server for a friend's Internet cafe. He has 2 ISPs. Here is what I did: ## NAT -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.128 -o eth2 -j SNAT --to-source 82.77.148.83 -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.128 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source 83.103.190.175 ## Removing default routing /sbin/ip rule add prio 50 table main /sbin/ip route del default table main ##

Dear Alexey, Sorry to bother you with this small question about nexthop syntax failing, but I haven''t found anyone else who can answer it - including Matthew Marsh or those on the lartc mailing list. The problem, with 2.2.19 and 2.2.20 kernels and versions of iproute2 up to iproute2-2.2.4-now-ss001007 (the most recent that compiles for me), is that this command does not work: # ip ro

Hi, I am new in LARTC list. I had intermediate skills in networking. What I tried to do: Use 2 links with loadsharing + falt toletant (to add bandwitdh) ok ! I am use Debian Etch in router/fw With kernel debian default + routes-2.6.17-12.diff patch The Problem: The iproute2 just route thought the last gateway of nexthop rule. I was running tcpdump in 2 terminals, tcpdump -nni eth0 ...

Hi, I'm wanting to configure a CentOS 6 server to have a fall-back default route via a second network interface. Given: - eth0 with 192.168.0.10 on subnet 192.168.0.0/24 gateway 192.168.0.1 - eth1 with 192.168.1.10 on subnet 192.168.1.0/24 gateway 192.168.1.1 Where eth0's network is a "back door" to the internet, and eth1's is the "front door", I believe I can

Hi all, I have a setup with some zones : net, loc, vpn1(ipsec) , where each zone have the following address spaces "my firewall" net : 200.200.200.0/24 loc : 192.168.1.0/24 vpn1: 10.10.50.0/23 "my firewall" there is default route to net route to vpn1 when dst = 10.10.50.0/23 "vpn1 site" there is default route to net route to my site

I''ve applied julian''s paches to a 2.6.14 gentoo kernel with the appropiate options enabled, and i''m using a modified version of the mpath2.sh script also available on julian''s site http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ Overall everything works nearly perfectly. Incomming connections to either the fios (PPPoE) connection, or cable modem get routed back out correctly. The

Dear all, I''ve the following problem with routing + NAT: If I''ve two ISP and I''m using two nexthop in default route with MASQUERADE on both ISP links, I see routing cache regenerated, but sometimes packets sent to a new link (after cache regeneration) uses wrong source address for masquerading. Here is the config. I''ve two links to outside via two

Hi How can I clear the arp cache? and ls it possible to setup 2 gateways in centos Thank you for your help