[LARTC] Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
Is added table 10 to the rt_tables file? : echo "201 10" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables if no, do it first, one time. Then run the ip route command. Bye. Marcos. Robert Kurjata escribió: Cytowanie Marc-Christian Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:32, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:02, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument blubber bleh silly me. I implemented ipcalc.pl in my brain now ;) hmm, now what: setting up that script gives me a default route to the 1st providers default gateway and all traffic is going through that gateway (1st provider) and the 2nd isn't touched in any way. Any idea about it? -- ciao, Marc look at my work about it at: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/tmp/mpath2.sh maybe it will help :) (it works) ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
Cytowanie Marc-Christian Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:32, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:02, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > > ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10 > > > RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > > blubber bleh silly me. I implemented ipcalc.pl in my brain now ;) > > hmm, now what: > setting up that script gives me a default route to the 1st providers default > gateway and all traffic is going through that gateway (1st provider) and the > 2nd isn't touched in any way. Any idea about it? > -- > ciao, Marc look at my work about it at: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/tmp/mpath2.sh maybe it will help :) (it works) -- Robert Kurjata mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
Can you post your Full config? Might be able to help you out. I had the same problem until I removed one of my config lines which fixed the issue (Look at old Posts). - Cheers On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 05:25, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:32, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:02, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > > ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10 > > > RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > > blubber bleh silly me. I implemented ipcalc.pl in my brain now ;) > > hmm, now what: > > setting up that script gives me a default route to the 1st providers default > gateway and all traffic is going through that gateway (1st provider) and the > 2nd isn't touched in any way. Any idea about it? ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:32, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:02, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10 > > RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > blubber bleh silly me. I implemented ipcalc.pl in my brain now ;) hmm, now what: setting up that script gives me a default route to the 1st providers default gateway and all traffic is going through that gateway (1st provider) and the 2nd isn't touched in any way. Any idea about it? -- ciao, Marc ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
Hello,
>From the looks of it you have the IP Network incorrect, You need to set
this to your Network... for example ..
ip route add 23.215.4.0/26 dev eth2 src 23.215.4.61 table T2
23.215.4.0 is the network address, because 23.215.4.1 is my gateway for
this interface (Router). If you still have a hard time with it .. You
can post your Netmask and GW and I should be able to figure it out for
you. There may be a way to do it from your IP address, but I had
subnetting and aren't very good at it :)
ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10
On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 11:02, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> On Thursday 26 August 2004 15:06, Marcos Schonfeld wrote:
>
> Hi Marcos,
>
> > 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
>
> shouldn't this be table 10 and table 20? :)
>
> anyway, I have a problem settings this up. I get:
>
>
> ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>
> ip route add default via 212.71.142.209 table 10
> ip route add 61.212.57.152/29 dev eth2 src 61.212.57.152 table 20
> ip route add default via 61.212.57.153 table 20
>
> ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>
> ip route add 61.212.57.152/29 dev eth2 src 61.212.57.152
> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
>
> ip rule add from 212.71.142.210 table 10
> ip rule add from 61.212.57.152 table 20
>
> strace from 1st RTNETLINK invalid argument:
>
>
> controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0) = 36
> dup(2) = 4
> fcntl64(4, F_GETFL) = 0x8002 (flags O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)
> fstat64(4, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(136, 0), ...}) = 0
> old_mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
> 0x4b3ed000
> _llseek(4, 0, 0xb8526df0, SEEK_CUR) = -1 ESPIPE (Illegal seek)
> write(4, "RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argum"..., 36) = 36
> close(4)= 0
> munmap(0x4b3ed000, 4096)= 0
> brk(0)
>
> any idea what I am doing wrong?
>
> Thanks alot.
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:02, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10 > RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument blubber bleh silly me. I implemented ipcalc.pl in my brain now ;) -- ciao, Marc ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
On Thursday 26 August 2004 15:06, Marcos Schonfeld wrote:
Hi Marcos,
> 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
shouldn't this be table 10 and table 20? :)
anyway, I have a problem settings this up. I get:
ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210 table 10
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
ip route add default via 212.71.142.209 table 10
ip route add 61.212.57.152/29 dev eth2 src 61.212.57.152 table 20
ip route add default via 61.212.57.153 table 20
ip route add 212.71.142.210/29 dev eth1 src 212.71.142.210
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
ip route add 61.212.57.152/29 dev eth2 src 61.212.57.152
RTNETLINK answers: File exists
ip rule add from 212.71.142.210 table 10
ip rule add from 61.212.57.152 table 20
strace from 1st RTNETLINK invalid argument:
controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0) = 36
dup(2) = 4
fcntl64(4, F_GETFL) = 0x8002 (flags O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)
fstat64(4, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(136, 0), ...}) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x4b3ed000
_llseek(4, 0, 0xb8526df0, SEEK_CUR) = -1 ESPIPE (Illegal seek)
write(4, "RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argum"..., 36) = 36
close(4)= 0
munmap(0x4b3ed000, 4096)= 0
brk(0)
any idea what I am doing wrong?
Thanks alot.
--
ciao, Marc
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
Cytowanie Julian Anastasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hello, > > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > You mean that using NAT its impossible to do load balance or > > this is the worng command? If its the wrong command, what´s > > the right one? > > Don't disappoint, you can check the following patches > and howtos: > > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes > > > Tks A LOT for the response! > > Fernando Favero > > Regards > > -- > Julian Anastasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ___ > LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > Hi, everybody again:) As this subject comes and goes from time to time, I have some personal observations. I'm personally using such a solution :) Although this solution works perfectly (in bigger setup like few hundred machines) it has some drawbacks. One of the biggest is that some applications WILL NOT WORK. It doesn't just matter if it is connectionless or not, it just depends on security flavour used by the internet side application. For example I've found this: 1. Home Banking - typically online banks are verifying source IP of the connecting client, so it just breaks almost every connection :( 2. phpBB - depending on setup, this forum also verifies the origin. etc. I've found some misunderstanding in letters at the list: If you use Julian's patches and the script I've proposed single connection goes through single link only! during single connection source address and source interface will not be changed. But different connections with the same target can start from different interfaces and that is the source of problems mentioned above. If you login with one source, get the page and in next connection try to get it from another ip you are lost :(. But not everything is lost - policy routing comes as a helper. You can route some applications via only one connection. But this makes things more complicated as some BW management may be needed, and performance decreases. I can say that it works, because for me it works with 4 uplinks, but tuning the correct settings took some time. >From my point of view using equal cost multipath routing blindly without provider help is a bit complicated thing. But it is some kind of workaround when you can't buy a bigger, single link. PS. Sorry for this long long letter, but I hope it helps. PS. Julian, thanks for linking my script mpath2.sh from your hotwo, as I haven't got ocassion earlier :) -- Robert Kurjata mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
Hello, On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You mean that using NAT its impossible to do load balance or > this is the worng command? If its the wrong command, what´s > the right one? Don't disappoint, you can check the following patches and howtos: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes > Tks A LOT for the response! > Fernando Favero Regards -- Julian Anastasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] Re: [LARTC] RE: [LARTC] Load Balance simply doesn´t work...
> > ip route add default scope global nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 1 \ > nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 1 > This multipath routing command keep coming up as classic way to perform multipath routing for NAT access, which I considered it as VERY misleading. It should only be used if you are NOT using NAT. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
