Re: [LARTC] load balancing and failover
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 08:37:11PM +0530, Manish Kathuria wrote: > It is actually easy. The LARTC How To does not take care of failover > but load balancing works fine. So if you want just load balancing you > can go with it. You can also try out any of the following approaches / > scripts: Thanks for the links. They will make excellent reading. He has prper lease lines and so I thought it will be a piece of cake to do it in Linux. Guess I have to eat my words ;) With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] load balancing and failover
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 07:52:32PM +0530, Manish Kathuria wrote: > You can try out implementing configuring a load balancing and failover > system referring to the following documents: > > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd-usage.txt Sigh I thought it must be very easy with lartc. Also, I cannot patch the kernel. It is a live system and the person there will definitely kill me if I even ask him. Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] load balancing and failover
Hi, A friend of mine has 2 lines of 512kbps terminated in two Linux boxes. He now want to remove those 2 boxes and have some device which will loadbalance the two ISPs and also have a failover arrangement. But he has agreed to give me a chance to do it on Linux for my own satisfication. Is this easy to do with lartc? How do I go about it exactly? I have very less time to do it since his whole network will be done for that time and I cannot afford to play for long time. Is it worth trying it with lartc for academic sake atleast? Can someone suggest some easy steps? With warm regards, -Payal p.s. Is lartc.org down? ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] lartc.org reading
Hi, This is the 7th time I am reading lartc.org howto and now got the reason why I could't understand it for so many days. It starts real good with cool basics, but on Chapter 4 "Rules - routing policy database" it gets complicated very fast. e.g. it mentions /etc/iproute2/rt_tables file but does not tell what it does, and what all other configuration files do. It is like learning a language by reading a dictionary - not an easy way. Also, easy examples are not shown and the author has graduated to complex examples so soon. Is there any easier to understand guide for me and other like me? Thanks in advance. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] simple routing query
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:42:06PM +0100, Andreas Unterkircher wrote: > I had such a experience with SuSE on a server with two network > interface. While only one of them was > connected to the lan with a fixed IP, the other was configured by YaST > to get it's IP from a DHCP server. I too am on SuSE. One IP is my LAN IP but the SuSE box is the DHCP server itself. But many of my friend have seen this on their RedHat servers. 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link Their machines had only 1 network card and had fixed IPs. What is the solution to this? With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] simple routing query
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:50:34PM -0500, Brett Charbeneau wrote: > http://www.cas.ilstu.edu/shac/Knowledge/Spam/iana.htm > > see the "Autoconfiguration" IP Addresses section. Yes, I read it, thnaks but I don't understand it. | Addresses in the range 169.254.0.0 to 169.254.255.255 are used |automatically by some PCs and Macs when they are configured to use IP, |do not have a static IP Address assigned, and are unable to obtain an |IP address using DHCP. | |This traffic is intended to be confined to the local network, so the |administrator of the local network should look for misconfigured hosts. What do they mean by this? Is it at address given by error due to misconfiguaration. Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] simple routing query
Hi, I have 2 interfaces - one for adsl and other for LAN on my Linux gateway machine. The IP addresses are 10.10.10.3 & 192.168.10.101 respectively. Now my routing tables show this particular entry. What exactly is this? 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link Or by traditional route -n, 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0U 0 0 0 eth0 What exactly is this 169.254.0.0/16 thing? Thanks in advance. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] throtling bandwidth
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:12:03PM -0500, Brett Charbeneau wrote: > Does that make your pppoe interface ppp0? Try issuing an > "ifconfig" command to see. I'm always confused about how the > kernel sees a pppoe interface. Yes, my ISP assigned IP is given to ppp0 With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] throtling bandwidth
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:09:18AM -0500, Brett Charbeneau wrote: > tc qdisc delete dev eth0 root > tc qdisc add dev eth0 root tbf limit 5kb burst 5kb rate 256kbit > > tc qdisc delete dev eth1 root > tc qdisc add dev eth1 root tbf limit 5kb burst 5kb rate 256kbit I have adsl (pppoe) with eth0 as my internal interface and eth1 as external. What do I do in this case, I want to limit to 64kbps Thanks a lot. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] throtling bandwidth
Hi, My branch office as got a 256Kbps b/w from their service provider at a very very high rate per Mb. They don't require 256Kbps at all but the ISP does not offer anything low. Can we restrict the bandwith to say 64Kbps nothing fancy? How do I go about it? With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] using lartc
Hi, Even after many tries I am not able to get lartc at all. So, I am starting fresh again. Can someone tell can I use lartc on a single machine and see it working? Where do I start from exactly? I am getting more and more confused. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] wondershaper query
Hello, I am trying wondershaper-1.1a on a friend's pppoe connection on her Linux box. There are a few things I don't understand. 1. She has pppoe connection so should DEV=eth0 or DEV=ppp0 ? 2. Her ISP just says on her payment bill that the speed is 128kbps, but doesn't mention any downlink/uplink speed, so in that case what should be, DOWNLINK= and UPLINK= ? 3. She uses the net in her small office and people mostly to browse the net, send emails sometimes ftp data out and sometimes ssh to other servers to trouble shoot their programs. In such a case is wondershaper helpful? Or is it not required at all? Thanks in advance. With warm regards, Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] semi-OT: internal IP range
Hi, The other day I went to my friend's company where her local LAN IP was 37.0.0.8 I was pretty shocked since that IP is not for internal use. So, I asked her system admin about it and he muttered something about classless IP range and went off. Was he right in giving such a range to internal IPs? Also, the netmask was 255.255.255.0 and the default gateway was 37.0.1.x. Is this weird too? Thanks a lot for the answers in advance. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] load sharing
Hi, I am taking my machine loaded with Mandrake 10.0 and Suse 9.1 to my friend's place. She has 2 different ISP providing pppoe connections in her office. She has allowed me try load balancing on my machine on Sunday. I just wanted to know does lartc stand good with pppoe? I have heard conflicting opinions on the same. I do not want to patch my kernel at all for it. Is it possible with my current system? With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] routing decisions
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:30:48AM -0800, Jonathan Day wrote: > Is packet forwarding enabled on the box you're using > as a gateway? Ofcourse, because if I delete the default route using route command and add 192.168.0.4 as default route I can reach the internet. -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] routing decisions
Hi, I have Mandrake 10.0 gateway with internet via. ppp0. Also, another machine 192.168.0.4 is always connected to net via. a dial-up modem. Now I want to allow a machine (192.168.0.2) in my LAN to access net through 192.168.0.4. So according to lartc howto I did, # echo 200 John >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables # ip rule add from 192.168.0.2 table John # ip route add default via 192.168.0.4 dev eth0 table John # ip route flush cache But still 192.168.0.2 cannot access internet. tracert shows that the traffic is coming to my Linux gateway and then going nowhere. I have not changed anything in 192.168.0.2 What steps am I missing? Waiting eagerly for any help on this. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] allocating b/w
Hi, A majority of our work inolves ftp to my clients' side over our slow connection. Now we need to allocate a greater b/w for this protocol. Is there anyway I can do it using lartc easily? Any suggestions on this please? With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] multiple providers
Hi, I have Mandrake 10.0 (official). I have read the section in lartc about "Routing for multiple uplinks/providers", but still I have some queries below. I have a DSL connection where they give pppoe which is directly terminated into eth1 of my Linux box. Now I have another machine connected to dial-up and it is on same LAN connected to eth0 of Linux box. Now, can I use both these bandwidths (this is a test exercise to understand lartc) and do sort of load balancing? Is there any patching needed for my kernel? How do I make sure that indeed both the lines are used? Thanks a lot for any help in advance. With warm regards, -Payal ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] routing query again
Hi, I have a small routing query again. Same question but asking in simple language. Can I use, route add -net default gw 192.168.10.1 route add -net default gw 192.168.10.2 Where 192.168.10.1 and 192.168.10.2 are internal IPs of two different ISPs routers. And assume that random routing is enabled? I would like to mention that this time both default IPs are internal IPs connected to external world. I am not still clear on real use of multiple default gateways, so please excuse. With warm regards, -Payal -- "Visit GNU/Linux Success Stories" http://payal.staticky.com Guest-Book Section Updated. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] default route
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:18:23PM +0530, Vadiraj C S wrote: > > Is it possible to use more than one default route? I believe yes. > > Any comments on them. If I use more than one, where will the trafficc be > > diverted from? > > Yes you can, the traffic gets balanced between two routes... Ok. Just an sacrileige question. Are you 100% sure? Can you say with surety that with 2 default gateways, packets won't get lost any time. Thanks for the comments. Regards, -Payal p.s. deeproot rocks :) -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] default route
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 04:29:25PM +1000, Damion de Soto wrote: > >Is it possible to use more than one default route? I believe yes. > >Any comments on them. If I use more than one, where will the trafficc be > >diverted from? > That's a good question. I was going to answer your other post, but did > some tests > which contradicted what I was going to say. > > I originally thought if you had two default routes on the same metric, > traffic would just go out the first one, however, when I tried this > earlier, I started losing packets, so I can only assume the packets were > going out the other route, and then getting lost. anyone comment on this ? A friend of mine says that if y ou have 2 default routes on different subnets each the routing will be done randomly. Unfortunately I do not have that kind of setup to test. I did it on same subnet using 2 default routes and found that I was losing packets too. > If you use the ip route tool to created multiple weighted or equalized > default routes, you then use source-based routing to make sure that the > traffic goes back out the same route it came in on. > (unless you're trying to be tricky with asymetrical routing) Isn't random routing (without depending on source) easy to implement than source based routing? Can you please tell what you mean by using ip route to create multiple weighted routes? I have absoluttely no idea what ip command does exactly. I am using just plain "route" and ifconfig. Are they decrepated? With warm regards, -Payal -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] default route
Hi, Is it possible to use more than one default route? I believe yes. Any comments on them. If I use more than one, where will the trafficc be diverted from? With warm regards, -Payal -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] routing ways
Hi, This is just a hypothetical case (now) to get my basics cleared. If I have 2 different service providers A and B which provides me bandwidth. They terminate their lines on their two separate routers. So, one end of router has a external ip and the end connected to a switch in my LAN has an internal ip. So, I have two gateways to reach the internet i.e. 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 Now, I want to keep a Linux box which will be connected to the switch and serve as gateway for windows clients. My aim is random routing and NOT source-based routing. So, will this work properly as random router, # route add -net default gw 192.168.0.1 # route add -net default gw 192.168.0.2 So, my routing table will carry entries like, 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 So, in theory this will do random routing between two ISPs. But a friend of mine says that this won't work and this is a classic "one-lung router". He says that for such a thing to work I have to give two ips from differnt subnets like e.g. (just fake ips for examples) # route add -net default gw 202.54.10.1 # route add -net default gw 61.11.191.11 And give two IPs from the respective subnets to my Linux box. Can someone please explain whether this and why my thinking may not work? Thanks a lot and bye. With warm regards, -Payal -- "Visit GNU/Linux Success Stories" http://payal.staticky.com Guest-Book Section Updated. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] counting web traffic
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:27:08AM +0530, Venkatesh. K wrote: > I am sorry for the goof up in my earlier mail. > > As suggested earlier, using router to count traffic is best way to go. If > you have a router which can't provide the accounting, you can consider > using a netflow probe. But what if I have only 1 ip and multiple domains hosted on it? What use is router then here. Regards, -Payal -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] counting web traffic
Hi, When the webhosting comanies say that they give you say 10Mb webspace and 200Mb data transfer per month, how do they count data tranfer for that domain? I am unable to figure it out. With warm regards, -Payal p.s. hope this is not too OT here. -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] routing query
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:33:29PM -0400, Lawrence MacIntyre wrote: > Payal: > > What subnet are your users' machines on? Is there a third ethernet > address on the linux machine where the user machines connect or are they > connected to one of the two given ethernet interfaces (eth0 or eth1)? All machines are 125.125.125.0/24. They are either connected t eth0 r eth1. HTH, -Payal > On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 22:33, Payal Rathod wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a simple question. I asked a friend about it but he was also not > > clear. So, I thought of mailing the list. > > > > I have a linux box (RH 7.2) which will have 2 net cards. I have 2 types > > of connections to that box. One RF at eth0 and 1 ISDN at eth1. > > Now I told 10 people from the company to give eth1 as their default > > gateway and the rest as eth0. Ok, so far? Now my understanding that with > > the routing table below, all traffic coming to eth0 will be routed thru' > > RF router and all traffic coming to eth1 will be routed through ISDN > > router. Am I right? S, if ISDN fails only 10 people will suffer but the > > rest can continue using RF line. Same case with RF line, if it fails the > > 10 people can use ISDN without any glitch. This is no load balancing > > network. Just a simple routing decision. > > > > I have, > > route add default gw dev eth1 > > route add default gw dev eth0 > > > > > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface > > 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 lo > > 125.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 eth1 > > 125.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 eth1 > > default 203.124.123.111 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 > > default 125.125.125.3 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 > > default * 0.0.0.0 U 0 00 eth0 > > > > Can anyone comment whether I am right in my analysis? > > > > My friend's comments are given below, > > > > | I still say that should be necessary. I believe you need to echo 0 > > | at some files found by /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/send_redirects. > > | Otherwise devices won't route through your box, they'll be > > | redirected straight to one of the routers (at random, as far as I > > | know). > > > > With warm regards, > > -Payal -- For GNU/Linux Success Stories and Articles visit: http://payal.staticky.com ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] routing query
Hi, I have a simple question. I asked a friend about it but he was also not clear. So, I thought of mailing the list. I have a linux box (RH 7.2) which will have 2 net cards. I have 2 types of connections to that box. One RF at eth0 and 1 ISDN at eth1. Now I told 10 people from the company to give eth1 as their default gateway and the rest as eth0. Ok, so far? Now my understanding that with the routing table below, all traffic coming to eth0 will be routed thru' RF router and all traffic coming to eth1 will be routed through ISDN router. Am I right? S, if ISDN fails only 10 people will suffer but the rest can continue using RF line. Same case with RF line, if it fails the 10 people can use ISDN without any glitch. This is no load balancing network. Just a simple routing decision. I have, route add default gw dev eth1 route add default gw dev eth0 Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 lo 125.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 eth1 125.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 eth1 default 203.124.123.111 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 default 125.125.125.3 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 default * 0.0.0.0 U 0 00 eth0 Can anyone comment whether I am right in my analysis? My friend's comments are given below, | I still say that should be necessary. I believe you need to echo 0 | at some files found by /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/send_redirects. | Otherwise devices won't route through your box, they'll be | redirected straight to one of the routers (at random, as far as I | know). With warm regards, -Payal -- "Visit GNU/Linux Success Stories" http://payal.staticky.com Guest-Book Section Updated. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
