Hello,
A followup question to my earlier posting:
Is there a limit on how many number of aliases one
can set using Bering? If there is, what needs to be
done to increase it?
Thanks
--- J Oddissy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html#AEN268
>
>
>
> We are trying to accomplish the routing for multiple
> uplinks/providers. We almost succeeded, except for
> our aliases! We have a block of 32 addresses from
> two different providers. We are using Bering 1.2.
> Following is our etc/network/interfaces file:
>
>
>
> #===============Begin /etc/netowk/interfaces
> ===========================
> auto lo
> iface lo inet loopback
>
>
>
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 1.2.3.98
> masklen 27
> broadcast 1.2.3.127
> gateway 1.2.3.97
> # Aliases for first ISP
> up ip address add 1.2.3.99/27 dev eth0 label eth0:99
> #................THROUGH..............
> up ip address add 1.2.3.126/27 dev eth0 label
> eth0:126
>
>
>
> auto eth1
> iface eth1 inet static
> address 4.5.6.98
> broadcast 4.5.6.127
> masklen 27
> gateway 4.5.6.97
> # Aliases for second ISP
> up ip address add 4.5.6.99/27 dev eth1 label eth1:99
> #................THROUGH..............
> up ip address add 4.5.6.126/27 dev eth1 label
> eth1:126
>
>
>
> auto eth2
> iface eth2 inet static
> address 7.8.9.98
> masklen 24
> broadcast 7.8.9.255
>
>
>
> ###### SPLIT ACCESS ###########################
> up ip route add 1.2.3.98/27 dev eth0 src 1.2.3.98
> table ISP1
> up ip route add default via 1.2.3.97 table ISP1
> up ip route add 4.5.6.98/27 dev eth1 src 4.5.6.98
> table ISP2
> up ip route add default via 4.5.6.97 table ISP2
>
>
>
> #ip route add 1.2.3.96/27 dev eth0 src 1.2.3.98
> #ip route add 4.5.6.96/27 dev eth1 src 4.5.6.98
> #ip route add default via 1.2.3.97
>
>
>
> up ip rule add from 1.2.3.98 table ISP1
> up ip rule add from 4.5.6.98 table ISP2
>
>
>
> up ip route add 7.8.9.0/24 dev eth2 table ISP1
> up ip route add 4.5.6.98/27 dev eth1 table ISP1
> up ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table ISP1
> up ip route add 7.8.9.0/24 dev eth2 table ISP2
> up ip route add 1.2.3.98/27 dev eth0 table ISP2
> up ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table ISP2
>
>
>
> # Load balancing
> up ip route add default scope global nexthop via
> 1.2.3.97 dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 4.5.6.97 dev
> eth1 weight 1
>
>
>
> #===============End /etc/netowk/interfaces
> ===========================
>
>
>
> Some observations:
> 1. 'gateway' setting seems to be playing a major
> role
> on what aliases work. In desperation we tried
> several
> of the following combinations.
>
>
>
> 2. Main interfaces work in all but one configuration
>
> and the trouble is only with aliases.
>
>
>
> 3. If eth0's gateway alone is set, then all aliases
> on
> eth0 work, but only 98,99,105,110,112,115,119,125
> work
> on eth1, consistently
>
>
>
> 4. If the eth1's gateway alone is set, only the main
> eth0's interface works and others don't work. For
> eth1,
> only the above set of aliases works.
>
>
>
> 5. If eth0's gateway is set for both eth0 and eth1
> then eth0 aliases all work, but the above set of
> aliases of eth1 give out: "Destination Port
> Unreachable".
>
>
>
> 6. If eth1's gateway is set for both eth0 and eth1
> then
> also for eth1 only above set of aliases work,
> whereas
> for eth0, we get Destinatin Port Unreachable for 108
> and 120, rest get stuck.
>
>
>
> 7. If the gateway is set with the respective values,
> then nothing (including the main interface) works on
> the eth0. For the eth1 again only the above set of
> aliases work.
>
>
>
> 8. From the LAN (ie internallly) though,
> interestingly
> all interfaces are pingable!
>
>
>
> 9. If the 'gateway' parameter is set, then the load
> balancing rule does not kick in.
>
>
>
> 10. If gateway parameter is removed from both the
> interfaces (eth0 & eth1) then the loading rule is
> visible in 'ip route' list and it works( we tested
> it using tracetroute), but aliases in both
> interfaces
> are affected. Only some become available for pings
> and others get stuck.
>
>
>
> 11. Excepting for some aliases not available, split
> access work and if the load balancing rule kicked
> in,
> that works too.
>
>
>
> We are not too concerned about loading balancing
> outgoing traffic at this point. Our primary aim is
> to
> provide split access, which in itself seems to be
> working, but only with few aliases available on the
> second interface.
>
>
>
> Any ideas/suggestions on what we may be doing wrong?
> Any pointers or help is appreciated!
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
