Re: [LARTC] Re: Multi-path routing only using last nexthop in default route.

2006-01-16 Thread Jody Shumaker
Yes, it just shows you what is in the cache, but I was specifying ip addresses that weren't in the cache yet. I also tried doing traceroutes from an internal pc, and those always ended up going over the 1 interface. I've also tried adjusting the weights to 1:1 and opening up numerous connections to

Re: [LARTC] Re: Multi-path routing only using last nexthop in default route.

2006-01-16 Thread Alexander Samad
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:59:32PM -0500, Jody Shumaker wrote: > I found that for ppp devices, i should ony define the next hop with the > dev, not a via. However this still didn't fix my problem, but I've narrowed > down my problem a little further. > > # ip route get 66.189.123.136 > 66.189.12

[LARTC] Re: Multi-path routing only using last nexthop in default route.

2006-01-16 Thread Jody Shumaker
I found that for ppp devices, i should ony define the next  hop with the dev, not a via.  However this still didn't fix my problem, but I've narrowed down my problem a little further.# ip route get 66.189.123.13666.189.123.136 dev ppp0  src 71.248.183.244    cache  mtu 1492 advmss 1452 metric10

[LARTC] Load Balancing with Instant Messenger traffic?

2006-01-16 Thread Jared Ballou
Hi, I have a box set up to distribute load over 4 satellite connections. I cannot use Instant Messenger programs with it as it stands, I believe that using iproute2, the path to the server is not being locked to one interface, so the IM servers are getting user traffic from multiple IPs. When I

Re: [LARTC] even bandwith for users on 2 newtworks

2006-01-16 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Flemming Frandsen schrieb: > Alexey Toptygin wrote: > >> No, attaching to the input is just as easy as to the output. The >> reason that isn't implemented is that it wouldn't really be useful. > > > You are full of it. If "it"=="knowledge", then you're probably right. > What everybody who asks

[LARTC] Multi-path routing only using last nexthop in default route.

2006-01-16 Thread Jody Shumaker
I've applied julian's paches to a 2.6.14 gentoo kernel with the appropiate options enabled, and i'm using a modified version of the mpath2.sh script also available on julian's site http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ Overall everything works nearly perfectly.  Incomming connections to either the fios (PPPoE) co

Re: [LARTC] even bandwith for users on 2 newtworks

2006-01-16 Thread Peter Surda
Flemming Frandsen schrieb: The fact remains that ingress shaping is immensely useful and that it works. I agree. Ingress shaping, when done properly, is very useful. According to my experience, one of the main characteristics of traffic control (both ingress and egress) is that its effects a

Re: [LARTC] even bandwith for users on 2 newtworks

2006-01-16 Thread Flemming Frandsen
Alexey Toptygin wrote: No, attaching to the input is just as easy as to the output. The reason that isn't implemented is that it wouldn't really be useful. You are full of it. What everybody who asks for shaping want is mainly ingress shaping and it works just fine. When TCP starts to notic

RE: [LARTC] FS: Cyclades PC300/TE2 Dual T1 Interface PCI Card For LinuxPC!

2006-01-16 Thread Greg Scott
Title: Message I hope this isn't too far off topic.  I did a little bit of pricing homework a few months ago on new T1 cards.  The idea was to build a Linux based router/firewall.  After all, Ethernet NICs are easily available for less than $10 today.  But all the T1 cards I found cost a for

[LARTC] FS: Cyclades PC300/TE2 Dual T1 Interface PCI Card For Linux PC!

2006-01-16 Thread Brian Hammerstein
Title: Message Hi. I have a Cyclades PC300/TE2 card that turns a Linux PC into a Dual T1 interface router. It is well made and high performance. I used it for a few years. It includes two T1 cables. Cyclades has gotten out of this business but the Linux kernel developer community supports th

[LARTC] Question about TBF burst parameter

2006-01-16 Thread A.M. Sabuncu
Hi, I am a completely newbie, and have been doing intense reading for the entire last week, and have the following novice question: In section 9.2.2.2. of LARTC HOWTO, the following sample configuration given: # tc qdisc add dev ppp0 root tbf rate 220kbit latency 50ms burst 1540 Why is the burs

Re: [LARTC] even bandwith for users on 2 newtworks

2006-01-16 Thread Alexey Toptygin
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Flemming Frandsen wrote: Currently (pre-2.6.16) you can only attach a real traffic shaper to the the output of a device, but why not allow a traffic shaper to be attached to the input of a device, without any of the IMQ/IFB nonsense? I think the problem is that attaching th

Re: [LARTC] even bandwith for users on 2 newtworks

2006-01-16 Thread Flemming Frandsen
>> This is the most braindead defect of Linux (IMHO): You can't, because >> you can only shape outgoing traffic on an interface. > > Yes, you can. Easily. And you don't need IMQ/IFB. > > eth1->eth0 and wlan0->eth0 are easy. Classical outgoing shaping. > eth0->eth1 and eth0->wlan0 are similar. Outgo

Re: [LARTC] Network configuration

2006-01-16 Thread Michael Davidson
Hi, There is an "anti-spoofing" issue that you haven't mentioned and may well have to contend with. Some Linux distro's, certainly Redhat, when installed with default settings will engage the anti-spoofing mechnism. This prevents any interface from being used as a default route other than t