similar to: Problem with nexthop and gets dead

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 100.100.100.254 dev eth1 table 100 ip route add 200.200.200.0/24 src 200.200.200.1 dev eth2

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 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

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

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

(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

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 2 cable modems on a server (Linux 2.6.22). I use multipath, so the route is something like this: default nexthop via 201.6.102.1 dev eth1 weight 256 nexthop via 201.6.107.1 dev eth2 weight 128 The first one (eth1) has a higher priority, then when it goes down, I can "ifconfig" the interface eth1 down and Linux automatically detects the "dead"

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

Hola. Como hago para calcular la "Maxima Verosimilitud" de unos datos con distribucion uniforme? saludos. -- Leo [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear List. I try to build multipath connection w/ load balance to internet with two different gateway; My system is RH-8.0 with iproute-2.4.7-7.90.1.rpm and Kernel-2.4.26 (patching with Julian A. patch),and follow guide from http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/nano.txt, The problem is; when i try to connect to Internet form gateway machine it;s success , but only one interface is

Hello, I have finished setting up the load balancer with IPROUTE ... also patch the kernel to support DGD and now it''s working fine with the valuable guide at LARTC website, Julian Anastasov, and the kind people in this mailing list. Now I would like to launch a web server and a ftp server to the public but I''m stuck into a problem and really need your help. Currently internal

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..

Hi, Please suppose following config: Two external interfaces for two different providers On each of them configured NAT for specific IP addr. ie. 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 1.1.1.30/30 brd 1.1.1.31 scope global eth2 6: eth4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 2.2.2.66/27 brd 2.2.2.95 scope global eth4 On eth2

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

Hello people: I''m new in the forum. I''ve implemented the script for load balancing of "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HowTo" and I''ve a question: When I run the next command : "ip route" I get the folowing information: -------------- 192.168.0.32/27 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.33 192.168.0.96/27 dev eth2 proto

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

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

I''ve been trying - without success - to aggregate the bandwidth of 3 DSL modems using the instructions in the HowTo (sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). I _believe_ I''m following the instructions to the letter, but when I add the last command (the "ip route" with "nexthop") then nothing goes out through the modems. Each modem works when I add a single default gateway