Hi, I don't share your opinion. In fact, I worked hard to get all this
things working and finally it DOES work. I followed the explanation in
the LARTC-HOWTO in section 4.2:
ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 table 10
ip route add default via $P1 table 10
ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 table 20
ip route add default via $P2 table 20
ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 # This may be not necessary
ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 # This may be not necessary
## ip route add default via $P1 ## You don't have to set this default
gw, because you'll be routing accross this gateway instead of doing
load-balance
ip rule add from $IP1 table T1
ip rule add from $IP2 table T2
ip route add default scope global nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 1 \
nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 1
That's all, the last command is the default mutlipath gateway you will
route packets accross.
>
> 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 work...
> give up man!". This can save the time of a lot of guys,
> including me
> Tks anyway
>
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
