similar to: failover does not work for static ip rules

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

hi all, i am setting up a load balancing network with failover, i have applied julian patch, but whenever i try to establish a new connection from any client node, it gives me two entries in the routing cache for that destination with different or same interface for those entries, but off the two entries only one route path is used for the transmission. the ip rule/route are as follows,

Hi all, The write_PACKAGES function has a 'fields' argument that allows a user generating a PACKAGES file to specify additional fields to include. For symmetry, it would be nice for the available.packages function to be able to read those extra fields when specified. Similarly, it would be useful for installed.packages to have a 'fields' argument. This would allow a user to

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

here''s the setup (two dsl - same provider) +-----> link1 LAN----- linux box --| |----------internet +-----> link2 the setup is ok in terms of the failover requirement. the other link takes over when one is down. however, there is a very noticeable lag when both lines are up. i''ve tried changing

Greetings, I wanted to ask the list a question about dead gateway detection. I''ve followed the wonderful writeup by Christoph Simon on how to use Julians patch for dgd on two loadballanced connections, but I don''t want them loadballanced. How can I setup two default gateways but always have one be the preference unless it goes down. Once the dgd code sees that have it switch

Hello, I am trying something crazy here. I have gone through the old archives, lartc.org and lot''s of documentation, but still something is wrong. Here is the situation; The server is Fedora core 2 running kernel 2.6.5 I have 2 uplinks to two different ISP''s. (It will be 3-4 in the future). These ISP''s should serve the bandwith to local clients with multiple subnets.

Hi all iam trying to deploy loadbalance and failover My setup description --Fedora Core 4 --Linux 2.6.12.3 #1 SMP Mon Jul 25 22:37:34 IST 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux --tc utility, iproute2-ss050314 --ip utility, iproute2-ss050314 --iptables v1.3.0 And i had deployed Following configuration #table main with priority 50, the highest one ip rule add prio 50 table main #table 201 ip rule add

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

Hi Guys, I would just like to have advice and pointers of the best way would be, Someting like BGP or OSPF? I have 2 internet connections at diffrent locations. let say connection A and B 1.) router A has a fast internet connection and a seperate interface for clients using /lan/pppoe/ipsec etc and another ethernet interface going to router B 2.) router B has similiar setup as router A and

Hi Yuvrajsinh, thank you for the reply, yes it was a kernel issue and we have done an upgrade to 2.6.18.308 and used the packges that match the version number, and I have done a update post this evening as below Hi All, since the post I have made some kind of a progress 1. I upgraded the kernel to 2.6.18-308.1.1.el5 same I was able to download the ocfs2 module is

Hi all, I have setup two multipath route tables on my system for doing failover routing, What I want it''s that if GW at route1 of the MP is dead, traffic goes by route2, for doing that I have created the multipath routes as follows: ip route add table mail.traffic proto static nexthop via ${GW1} dev eth1 weight 1 nexthop via ${GW2} dev eth1 weight 250 But it does not run as I

I have question about multipath routing. I am running a 2.6.7 kernel (gentoo). I have a route with three nexthops on the same interface. I see a different nexthop being picked for different destination addresses. All is fine. Now if one of the nexthop goes down (arp entry times out and arp request doesnt get a response), does it remove the nexthop from contention and only use the remaining two

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

I have looked through the archives, and I can''t find the answer(not that it isn''t there) I have two connections to the net. I want load balancing and redundancy. cable adsl (24.141.) (64.229) | | | | | | | | ------------ | linux | |redhat 7.0| I have no idea were to even start. I would like equal access to both connections.

Hi all :) there is somekind of strange Routing problem that im getting with Linux-2.6.16 and iproute 2.6.16 , when i use command like : ip route add default nexthop via 1.1.1.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 1.1.1.2 dev eth1 all packets goes on 1.1.1.2 ( always last interface ) , whats is the problem ? this situation also tested with equalize flag , on two physical interface and etc ... -- Lady Luck

Hi, I get de following error messages in the logfile: var/log/tinc.ci1070300036.log:2011-08-16 14:12:54 tinc.ci1070300036[10834]: Possible node with same Name as us! Sleeping 10 seconds. I know that i don't have duplicate node names. But i see some strange node names: Al my node names start with ci but there is a node a did not create my self, and that is ca1070300036 How can i remove

Hi I''m trying to monitor my multi ISP shorewall with swping, the script works fine, i can see in log when an ISP is down, the script restart shorewall and /etc/shorewall/isusable is called, however in the swping log after the shorewall restart i see again a route by ISP (even the ISP down), is it normal ? should i not see one route less? shorewall version 4.4.5.4-1. ****

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 ...

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