similar to: Load Balancing With Three Connections

Hi, This is the first time I write to the list. My english is not so good, but I hope I''ll be understood. I have 4 adsl routers, plugged on a linux box, and this box e used to connect to a local network. The linux box has 5 NICs. eth0: local network inet 10.0.0.56/24 brd 10.0.0.255 scope global eth0 eth1: adsl router 1 inet 192.168.254.1/24 brd 192.168.254.255 scope global

i´ve been searching for a load balance solution since a month ago... what i can say is that it simply doesn´t work. I was unable to find one guy that did it with sucess. When "load balance" is the subject of the message on the list, the message is simply ignored. So... if it doesn´t work... why LARTC don´t delete it from the HOW TO and answer us with some "it simply doesn´t

Hi Ppl I have 5 adsl lines that after reading quite a bit i managed to get load balanced now abvoiusly it doesnt load balance evenly and this works on what routes are still in the routing cache. my question is my outbound masquerading had to be modified to use snat in iptables instead of just plain masquerading my outbound masquerading now works but my inbound port forwarding doesnt work would

Hi, I have a little problem to setup iproute in my network It looks like this: ---- ----- ------ R1 R2 R3 ---- ----- ------ | | | | | | ------------------------------- ETH1 ETH2 ETH3 ETH0 ETH4 -------------> DMZ ------------------------------ | |

Hey, I''m trying to set up a Gentoo box to replace an aging BSD box here. The BSD box is running packet filter and I have it set up to take all data and route it to one of six sattelites. I have come up with the following config, but unfortunately I have no real way to test it short of switching the satellites over to the new system and prayer. The setup is: 192.168.252/22 - The LAN

Hello lartc! I have strange problem setting load balancing over 4 interfaces. Something won''t accept more than 3 interfaces, While setting: ip route add default scope global \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc0 weight 1 \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc1 weight 1 \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc2 weight 1 It''s ok: ip r l default nexthop dev pvc0

Hello, We have 3 DSL connections connected to eth3 and another interface with a dedicated link in eth0 (main table) We want to balance selected traffic (using fwmark and iptables) through our 3 DSL connections in a secondary table named DSL (without using the dedicated link in eth0), but the next command is not accepted, and gives us the following error: # ip route add default

Hey, I''ve been scouring the web these past few days trying to find a suitable technique to load balance my network. Unfortunately I think my setup is very uncommon, so I''m looking to you guys to see if you can help. I currently have 2 ADSL modems, provided by the same ISP and terminating on the same gateway (I think having the same gateway is what is causing the problems, since

yes, this is a crazy subject. I have 4 ADSL lines to the same provider, which even have the same gateway. Those lines are connected to the same machine (more crazyness: even connected to the same nic. it works fine, I swear). this machine will serve this conenction to a local net. so, I setup the ifaces correctly, everything works. I add balancing using this command: # ip route replace default

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! I''m doing load balancing for 5 dsl lines, each one with a dsl router attached to a linux machine ethernet plug. The problem is that I''m adding 15 more dsl lines, and I don''t have enough PCI slots in the linux machine to sum up 20 ethernet plugs (I already have 2 quad ethernet cards). So I''m considering connecting all dsl routers and the linux machine to a

Here is my load balancing routes: - ip ro add default scope global nexthop via 192.168.200.254 dev eth0 weight 4 nexthop via 60.1.2.9 dev eth3 weight 1 nexthop via 60.1.3.7 dev eth4 weight 1 192.168.200.254 - Have 5Mbps 60.1.2.9 - Have 1.5Mbps 60.1.3.7 - Have 1.5Mbps But, I still see lots of traffic goes to 60.1.2.9 and 60.1.3.7 The 60.1.2.9 hits 1.4Mbps and the 60.1.3.7 hits 1.3Mbps whereas

We are currently using iproute2 to perform a round robin type load balancing. ip route add default proto static scope global nexthop via XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX dev eth1 weight 1 nexthop via XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX dev eth2 weight 1 >From my understanding this is destination based load balancing. And

Hi. I´m making an script for load balancing of two cablemodems internet connections toward my LAN. The problem is that when I try to ''equalize'' the the two internet connections with the weight=1 it doesn´t work. On the other hand, if I put 5 and 5 it works, but not at 100%, it does intermittlently, some times works and others don´t. example: ip route add default equalize\

Hi, I am connected to two DSL providers (DSL 1 - 1Mbps downlink/384kbps uplink and DSL 2 - 2Mbps downlink/512kpbs uplink) I would like to only allow ftp, pop3 and http via the DSL 1 and only smtp, ipsec and pptp via DSL 2. How can I do so? Can I use iproute to route these protocols? Below is my ip routing: - # DSL 1 ip route add 2.2.2.208/30 dev eth0 src 2.2.2.210 table 1 ip route add

Hi, The problem is that if I set the default route with two gateways, with the command ''ip route change default scope global nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 1 nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 1, in the linux router I have no problem working with internet but the NATTED clients can''t access. I have iptables configured with masquerade option. What I forget to do? Thanks and

Hi, I have a router that got its second link. I was trying to do load balancing, but i can not get it to work properly. Just one link works at time, and is always the second in the command ip route add default table 222 proto static. Am I missing something? My script is below. I am using Debian, tried with kernel 2.6.19 (my compilation) or debian''s one (2.6.18-3-486), same results

Hi! I had two uplinks till today. We stopped one of them today, so i thought i could share my experience. (it is maybe useful for somebody) I hadn''t managed to configure it using a LARTC howto, but the Nano-howto (http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt) and julian''s kernel patches. I had some problems with icq connections, because it is a two step connection (It is just theory). 1.

Hi! I''ve 5 DSL routers and a linux router in a switch. The linux router is doing NAT for a LAN network, but it freezes when I set up load balancing with this command: ip route add default proto static\ nexthop via 192.168.1.10 dev eth1\ nexthop via 192.168.1.20 dev eth1\ nexthop via 192.168.1.30 dev eth1\ nexthop via 192.168.1.40 dev eth1\ nexthop

http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/answers/Networking/Spanning_Multiple_DSLs -- Thank you Indunil Jayasooriya _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc