Re: [LARTC] Route by destination port?
Thanks, your document helped plenty. Does this work well with only the ROUTE target for Netfilter? Does anyone know what the earliest kernel version is that supports this target? On 09/05/06, Jason Boxman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 09 May 2006 08:59, Robert Gabriel wrote: Hello all, We have two ADSL lines configured on a single box, hence interfaces ppp0 ppp1. Is there a way to route packets to ppp0, say based on destination port 80 other traffic like voice through ppp1? Yes, I ended up doing it this way[1]. Works great so far. [1] http://edseek.com/archives/2006/05/01/configuring-multipath-routing-for-ports-without-balancing/ -- Jason Boxman http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] tc patched doesn't work with WFQ TOO
I've the same problem of Julien Bisconti. Can someone help me ? I try to compile iproute2 for my target ppc 8260. Thank you ! ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] Problem with routing 2 isps with 2.6.15 kernel
Doing routing based on this: http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html Have done it for over a year. Tried a new 2.6.15 kernel. Firewall is based on debian sarge. Most things work ok dnat snat etc. Can simultaneous ssh in to an internal host via both isps with no problems. At the moment the default route is via eth2. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 200:from all lookup 200 201:from 216.170.136.0/24 lookup isp1 201:from 24.196.120.28/30 lookup isp2 222:from all lookup multi 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ip route list table 200 192.168.0.0/16 via 192.168.2.254 dev eth0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ip route list table isp1 default via 216.170.136.1 dev eth1 proto static src 216.170.136.82 prohibit default proto static metric 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ip route list table isp2 default via 24.196.120.29 dev eth2 proto static src 24.196.120.30 prohibit default proto static metric 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ip route list table multi default via 24.196.120.29 dev eth2 proto static What always fails is: ssh into internal host via eth1. From there ssh or ping back to the original host. One thing I have noticed the there are far less connections in /proc/net/ip_conntrack but connections I was testing are listed. Was holding off posting until I could describe it better but running out of time :-( Sorry I know this is not enough. I need to put it on another kernel soon but I can try on another firewall if anyone has any ideas to try. Thanks John -- John McMonagle IT Manager Advocap Inc. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] HTB at 100+ Mbits/sec
Hello all, I've been trying to test HTB performance for different link bandwidths to find potential limits and this is what I have so far: http://home.comcast.net/~msethuraman/htbtest/ Can members please go over the setup, test procedure and the results and answer a few questions? 1. Is the testing methodology okay and can the results be considered accurate? If so, is this a decent representation of behavior outside the lab? 2. Does anyone know of any limits (theoretical or observed) beyond which HTB will not work or will be inaccurate? 3. I've never quite understood the recommendation for setting the root HTB to 85-90% of the link. All these tests used 100%. Can someone please explain or point me to some explanations for the 90% recommendation and why it is considered necessary? If you need more information, please let me know. Thanks a lot! -- Muthu ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
