similar to: Policy routing and strange packets traversing.

hi, i keep on fighting with balancing my two internet conections.. ive improved a routing like this: root@debian:/wk/ESTADISTICAS/Trafico_en_kisero_hq# ip route list 172.0.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.0.0.82 172.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 172.0.0.81 default nexthop via 172.0.0.1 dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 172.0.0.1 dev eth1

Hi all, I have a similar question like many asked before I know but Please help as i cant figure out where the problem is and how should I tackle. I have 2 ISP connections. I want to share the bandwidth from both. I have copied the script from many places and created my own after changes. Problem is that only one connection is utilized at a time. Not both working. ratio of consuming

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 ------------------------------ | |

Hello Shorewall list, I''m a happy Shorewall user since a few years now and everything works fine for me except one thing that I try to implement since a week, the multi-isp. I''ve downloaded the 2.4.0 Stable release yesterday and tried the RC2 since a week. My config is a Debian running a kernel 2.4.27 home made with the CONNMARK.diff patch applied I''m using 2 ISP,

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''m puzzled by a ploblem and I don''t know how to debug it... I have a firewall with 2 gateways, adsl and isdn. Main gateway is via adsl, backup via isdn. I setup 2 table ''adsl'' and ''isdn''. You can find a description below. I made a script to test both tables. That mainly 1. adds an iptables -t mangle -A

Hello, Could someone experienced suggest good solution for failover advanced router ? The router for which I need redundancy is quite complex: 1) has 5 interfaces 2) uses the same network and the other network IP aliases on some interfaces 3) uses bunch of policy routing rules 4) uses proxyarp feature on some interfaces 5) uses complex iptables setup [propably not important in this

Hi folks, i spent my whole day trying to set up my linux router using load balancing with multiple uplinks. I mainly focused on the nano howto, but somewhere I have a big mistake within my head. Basically the load-balancing is working, but not on a per-connection basis - just on a per packet basis. Practically this is not usable of course <g> But as far as I understood it should work..

I have a setup with two Internet providers. One circuit (net0 == eth1) is used primarily for employees and tunnels to other sites. The other (net1 == eth2) is for the production machines that customers access. Everythung works in teh sense that packets get to where they are sent (mostly) but I recently I had a sniffer on the system and noticed a problem I cannot solve. traffic coming in

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

I have a 2.6.12(ubuntu-patchset), kernel recompiled with this routing options: [*] IP: advanced router [*] IP: policy routing [*] IP: equal cost multipath Load balancing is working great, but i have problems whits long term tcp flows (like msn-messenger or vpns or any other type of long term ip based conection). I assume this is because after a period of time, the per-host

Hi all, I''m trying to set up a computer with 2 routes to the internet, much as described at http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html .One of my interfaces (eth5, 192.168.2.2) is only used for traffic originating inside the network. The other (eth1, 192.168.1.2) is only used for a VPN, where all (udp) traffic originates from outside our network. I have created a second

I have a doubt. What''s the correct use of mangle for the next network: eth0: 200.39.190.249 (public) eth1: 192.168.101.254 (private) I make nat with iptables and have the following htb script: tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: htb default 30 tc class add dev eth1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 10mbit burst 15k tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 15kbit ceil 10mbit

Hello newsgroup, I hope somebody with more routing experience then me can help me with the problem I have. The setup is as described below. A dual internet provider routing, multiple local area networks, and a dmz network with one public and one private ip range. I followed the instructions at lartc.org, and so far everything is working. The default route is via

Hi! This is another thread of "setting gateway in interfaces file" and while i dont want to create any confusion here, i have decided to open a new thread.(which mean Diamond King no longer a subscriber to shorewall-users) Actually, i turned out not to be the MARK issues. Something is missing and i got this error instead :- Setting up Accounting... Creating Interface Chains...

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

Hi, Shorewall version -4.0.12-2 (EL5 rpm version) OS : Centos 5.2 I have shorewall successfully running on Linux with multi ISP. Trying to make services such as "rsync, ftp" go through my secondary ISP. For which I did the following eth0 : Internal LAN eth4 : DSL (Second ISP) => x.x eth5 : T1 (First ISP) => y.y Created the following entries in

Hi, in my lan I have two firewall, fw1 is the first and manage inte-vlan routing. Fw2 manage internet and dmz. fw1 and fw2 have an interface (eth4 for both fw2 and fw1) on the same subnet that permit to the host behind fw1 to reach internet, my problem is on fw2: eth4 is the NIC that connect fw2 and fw1, I would''t like masquerading hosts behind fw1, so to eth4 of fw2 arrive all

Hello, I am attempting a PXE boot between two systems, each with multiple network cards. While there are a total of 8 ports on each computer, only two (each) are connected as follows: Boot Server eth0 - 10GbE fiber channel (private to the set of computers being managed) (Qlogic) eth4 - 1Gb ethernet (public and out of my sphere of management) (NetExtreme II)

Hello. I have the problem that I have two gateways on the same subnet, 80.237.244.1 and 80.237.244.33. Both gateways are 100 MBit cards, so I have 2 times 100 MBit to the Internet. The NIC in the server is a gigabit-card, so this card is easy able to use both gateways for outgoing traffic. Now I just want to use both gateways for my outgoing traffic but no matter what I do, it doesnt work. I