Piotr Chytla pisze:
First of all equal cost multipathing is evil ;>, It simply doesn't work for
packets in
forwarding path besides support in kernel is not maintained
Realy if you want load balance both uplinks disable
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED and you will have random traffic
distribiu
Piotr Chytla pisze:
First of all equal cost multipathing is evil ;>, It simply doesn't work for
packets in
forwarding path besides support in kernel is not maintained
Realy if you want load balance both uplinks disable
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED and you will have random traffic
distribiu
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:52AM +0200, Michał Margula wrote:
> Hello!
>
Hi
> I have trouble with multipath routing. Those options are enabled in
> kernel:
>
> [*] IP: policy routing
> [*] IP: equal cost multipath
> [*] IP: equal cost multipath with caching support (EXPERI
Hello!
I have trouble with multipath routing. Those options are enabled in
kernel:
[*] IP: policy routing
[*] IP: equal cost multipath
[*] IP: equal cost multipath with caching support (EXPERIMENTAL)
<*> MULTIPATH: round robin algorithm
But issuing:
ip r a 1.2.3.0/23 sco
Hi,
I was reading some old posts on this list, and found this post
(http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2005q1/014963.html) with a link for a
ip route script that is basically what I need.
My question is: when adding ip route rules, should I remove the traditional
default gateway of my linu
On 26/06/06, Armin ranjbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:46:06 +0300
"Vladimir Vitkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remove multipath caching and try again
if i remove
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED
i will be unable to use :
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MU
On Monday 26 June 2006 08:28, Armin ranjbar wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:46:06 +0300
>
> "Vladimir Vitkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Remove multipath caching and try again
>
> if i remove
> CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED
>
> i will be unable to use :
> CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR
> CONFI
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:46:06 +0300
"Vladimir Vitkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remove multipath caching and try again
if i remove
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED
i will be unable to use :
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RANDOM
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_WRANDOM
CONFIG
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=y
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR=y
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RANDOM=y
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_WRANDOM=y
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_DRR=y
and all of this algorithms works perfectly over icmp , but there is some
(maybe) problems with tcp
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:04:53 -0300
Luciano Ruete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Equalize was available as a patch in 2.4 kernels and AFAIK there are not 2.6
> patches, so to set that flag do nothing in most cases.
>
its quite strange , its somesort of working under 2.6.16 ,
> I think you hav
El Friday 23 June 2006 06:59, Armin ranjbar escribió:
> Hi all :)
>
> there is somekind of strange Routing problem that im getting with
> Linux-2.6.16 and iproute 2.6.16 , when i use command like :
>
> ip route add default nexthop via 1.1.1.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 1.1.1.2 dev
> eth1
>
> all packets
Hi all :)
there is somekind of strange Routing problem that im getting with Linux-2.6.16
and iproute 2.6.16 , when i use command like :
ip route add default nexthop via 1.1.1.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 1.1.1.2 dev eth1
all packets goes on 1.1.1.2 ( always last interface ) , whats is the problem ?
Hi all :)
there is somekind of strange Routing problem that im getting with Linux-2.6.16
and iproute 2.6.16 , when i use command like :
ip route add default nexthop via 1.1.1.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 1.1.1.2 dev eth1
all packets goes on 1.1.1.2 ( always last interface ) , whats is the problem ?
I currently have 4 DSL lines set up to load balance for my lan. The multipath works fine for connections the originate from the linux gateway (such as browsing the internet in KDE or using wget), but all the traffic from hosts on the lan is routed through only one of the DSL lines (as seen using nt
Hi, I have set up multipath routing using two gre tunnels.
The multipath routes are setup via (zebra/ospf).
I managed to modify zebra not to include the
'equalize' in the multpath route, and set the weights 1:2.
My question is that after doing 4+ ftp transfers I still do not see much traffic on
Title: Re: [LARTC] multipath routing
Hi, using the
following:
ip route add equalize 10.200.1.0/24 nexthop via
10.200.0.2 dev neta nexthop> via 10.200.0.2 dev neta2
while doing a ->
while [ 1 ]
do
ip route flush cache
done
the transfer of packets almost seems equal?
thx
Title: Re: [LARTC] multipath routing
Hi, I also used TEQL this
worked very well, but I require the (weight) option.
thx jason
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of
Edmundo CarmonaSent: Thu 10/27/2005 8:20 AMTo:
lartcSubject: Re: [LARTC] multipath routing
Multipath takes a little more
Multipath takes a little more that just setting the default route. You
have to set separate routing tables for each interface involved in the
multipath routing (though I haven't understood yet why they are
needed.. the fact is that if you don't set them, multipath won't
route).
Also, even if you s
Hi, I am tring to us ip route to load balance between
two interfaces.
ip route add equalize 10.200.1.0/24 nexthop via 10.200.0.2 dev neta nexthop
via 10.200.0.2 dev neta2
Where neta and neta2 are gre tunnels. Testing show that
packets travel in a single sided manner.
Do I need to use
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 06:11:26AM +0200, Daniel Frederiksen wrote:
> Ok folks, here goes..
>
> I have been boggling with a problem for the past week, and still haven't
> found a solution..
>
> I'm trying to route traffic from two providers through a Linux machine.
> But that is not the problem.
Ok folks, here goes..
I have been boggling with a problem for the past week, and still haven't
found a solution..
I'm trying to route traffic from two providers through a Linux machine.
But that is not the problem. The ISP's have provided me with a WAN IP
class for both of the lines, to be ro
Christian Schmid wrote:
nexthop via 80.237.244.1 dev eth1 weight 100
nexthop via 80.237.244.33 dev eth1 weight 100
I have read postings on the net but all of them are using huge scripts
because they are on different networks. My problem seems to be a much
easier problem but I ju
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:41:55PM -0700, gypsy wrote:
> Christian Schmid wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
>
> > 80.237.244.0/26 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 80.237.244.52
> > default
> > nexthop via 80.237.244.1 dev eth1 weight 100
> > nexthop via 80.237.244.33 dev eth1 weigh
Christian Schmid wrote:
>
> Hello.
> 80.237.244.0/26 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 80.237.244.52
> default
> nexthop via 80.237.244.1 dev eth1 weight 100
> nexthop via 80.237.244.33 dev eth1 weight 100
Do not use weight parameters exceeding a single digit!
> I hav
Hello.
I have the problem that I have two gateways on the same subnet, 80.237.244.1 and 80.237.244.33. Both
gateways are 100 MBit cards, so I have 2 times 100 MBit to the Internet. The NIC in the server is a
gigabit-card, so this card is easy able to use both gateways for outgoing traffic.
Now I
Dinh Nam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyà : jeudi 7 avril 2005 02:55
> Ã : Laurent LAVAUD
> Cc : lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
> Objet : Re: [LARTC] Multipath routing + traffic separation problem.
>
>
> Your settings seem to be correct, I just don't know why you don't want t
Your settings seem to be correct, I just don't know why you don't want to balance http, https and ftp traffic between both connections?
About the bug, I haven't used linux 2.4 for a long time, for 2.6, fwmark is in hexa, so be careful with 10 vs. 0xa, you'd better use values less than 0xa to
Hello,
I have set up a multipath gateway.
System is a linux 2.4.29 kernel, iproute 20010824, iptables 1.2.11.
here is the setup:
firewall:/# ip rule
0: from all lookup local
100:from all lookup main
152:from all fwmark 10 lookup wan1
153:from all fwmark 20 lookup
Hi All,
I have a linux router, configured with two internet connections and two
lan segments. I've setup multipath routing as described in
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html
My problem (I think) is that somehow the router will randomly choose
incorrect routing paths for differ
I have a private lan that is connected to the world via 3 dsl lines.
I putup a linux box that handles all the dsl lines, lan gateway and
all isworking well...until...one of the dsl lines goes down. My
routing table is:x.x.x.x dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link
src x.x.x.xx.x.x.x dev ppp1
I have a private lan that is connected
to the world via 3 dsl lines. I put
up a linux box that handles all the dsl lines, lan gateway and all is
working well...until...one of the dsl lines goes down. My routing
table is:
x.x.x.x dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src x.x.x.x
x.x.x.x dev ppp1
I have a private lan that is connected to the world via 3 dsl lines. I put
up a linux box that handles all the dsl lines, lan gateway and all is
working well...until...one of the dsl lines goes down. My routing table is:
x.x.x.x dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src x.x.x.x
x.x.x.x dev ppp1 p
Hi,
My workstation is connected to a LAN with two different gateways. GW1 is
rate-limited to 2Mbps while GW2 is unlimited. Routing through GW1
is cheaper, thus I don't want to be using only GW2.
At any given time, I would like to be able to use GW1 while keeping it
uncongestioned and to use GW2 f
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 12:59, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > ensure traffic always go through the right interface.
> > > - TCP connect() for unbound socket uses saddr=0.0.0.0 daddr=REMOTE_IP.
> > > The routing then returns the best source IP to use for this connection
> > > after creating a connected r
Hello,
On 18 Nov 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> Right. And disabling rp_filter might open a security hole; so I'll
For internal interfaces rp_filter is optional.
> ensure traffic always go through the right interface.
> > - TCP connect() for unbound socket uses saddr=0.0.0.0 d
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 21:43, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hi !
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Vincent Jaussaud Mailing Listes wrote:
>
> Yes, this is a problem, job for user space tools to change
> the routing settings on failure.
Ok, I think I can manage to write some scripts to manage the
Hello,
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Vincent Jaussaud Mailing Listes wrote:
> On top of this, defaults gateways for internal servers are unlikely to become
> unreachable, since they are on the firewall itself.
> Gateways which are likely to colapse, are the ones used by the firewall, eg
> ISP1 &
> Hello,
>
Hi julian !
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
>
> > On All servers, we setup multipath default route, so that they can use
both link as well.
>
> That means they know which link is alive or it does not
> matter? :)
>
Well, at this time, it doesn't matter yet :-)
A
Hello,
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> On All servers, we setup multipath default route, so that they can use both link as
>well.
That means they know which link is alive or it does not
matter? :)
> Let's say we have Server A in our internal public network, with
Hi there;
I'm planning to implement multipath routing across two ISP in the next few weeks, but
before going further, I have a routing question which is puzzling me :)
Here is the setup:
10.0.0.0/8172.16.0.0/16
ISP1ISP2
||
||
_||_
[Linux Fi
Hello,
On 29 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> I was thinking about using the metric value for this.
>
> Let's say:
>
> ip route add table dual-gw proto static 192.168.0.0/24 via GW1 dev eth1
> metric 1
> ip route add table dual-gw proto static 192.168.0.0/24 via GW2 dev eth1
> metric
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 23:21, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 28 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
>
> > My question is, if we ensure that EVERY packets, whatever path they use
> > to arrive, finally pass through a single peer doing NAT, is this suppose
> > to work around my TOS p
Hello,
On 28 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> My question is, if we ensure that EVERY packets, whatever path they use
> to arrive, finally pass through a single peer doing NAT, is this suppose
> to work around my TOS problem ?
Sounds correct. The requirement is each packet fr
>
> It seems you can safely alter the TOS for all packets
> entering your box/site.
>
Ok, I'll dig into this tip, and see how it goes.
If I can't figure out this NAT problem, I'll do this.
> May be you can hunt it with tcpdump. I assume your are
> using the patches because the plain
Hello,
On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> > 2.4 mask 0x1C, inverted 0xE3
> > 2.2 mask 0x1E, inverted 0xE1
> >
> > So, for 2.2 may be:
> >
> > ipchains -I input -d 0.0.0.0/0 22 -t 0xE3 0x00
> Just tried. Now SSH connections don't break anymore !!! :) Thanks !
>
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 20:45, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > > Now I see, then the TOS is a big problem for you. May
> > > be your problem will be solved if TOS is not a routing key but
> > > it does not sound as a thing that is
Hello,
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
> > Now I see, then the TOS is a big problem for you. May
> > be your problem will be solved if TOS is not a routing key but
> > it does not sound as a thing that is easy to fix in kernel.
>
> Actually, you can simply play whack-a
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 20:21, Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
>
> > However, I don't get why, in the same SSH session, TOS may differ from
> > one packet to another. Using tcpdump, it seems that TOS value change
> > right after the authentication has been success
On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> However, I don't get why, in the same SSH session, TOS may differ from
> one packet to another. Using tcpdump, it seems that TOS value change
> right after the authentication has been successfully made.
Shit... you figured that one out *quite* a bit faste
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> Hello,
> On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> > But traffic is NAT-ed after multipath routing occurs !
> > Eg, the box which do multipath routing do not NAT traffic; traffic get
> > NAT-ed when leaving the gateways:
> >
> > LAN --> FW w/
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:12, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
>
> > But traffic is NAT-ed after multipath routing occurs !
> > Eg, the box which do multipath routing do not NAT traffic; traffic get
> > NAT-ed when leaving the gateways:
> >
> >
Hello,
On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> But traffic is NAT-ed after multipath routing occurs !
> Eg, the box which do multipath routing do not NAT traffic; traffic get
> NAT-ed when leaving the gateways:
>
> LAN --> FW w/ multipath-routing
> ||
> Gat
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 16:55, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
Hi julian !
>
> On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
>
> > > ssh tends to play with TOS fields (and rightly so). Routing is keyed to the
> > > *triple* (src, dst, tos), something that most people (including me) normally
>
Hello,
On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> > ssh tends to play with TOS fields (and rightly so). Routing is keyed to the
> > *triple* (src, dst, tos), something that most people (including me) normally
> > forget. However, in this particular case that may be the reason for your
> >
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 16:24, Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
>
> > When only one gateway is used to reach remote networks, everything is
> > working just fine. (Whatever gateway we choose to use)
> > Whenever we attempt to activate multipath routing over both ga
On 25 Oct 2002, Vincent Jaussaud wrote:
> When only one gateway is used to reach remote networks, everything is
> working just fine. (Whatever gateway we choose to use)
> Whenever we attempt to activate multipath routing over both gateways,
> then SSH don't work anymore. We can ping, traceroute, t
rded Message-
From: Vincent Jaussaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: lartc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LARTC] multipath routing problem - Help needed
Date: 22 Oct 2002 18:17:03 +0200
Hi there;
I'm currently facing some weird issues using multipath routing, and I'm
feeling des
Hi there;
I'm currently facing some weird issues using multipath routing, and I'm
feeling desesperate to solve them. :-(
Overview:
-
We have two distinct datacenters, linked to our office network across
VTUND VPNs. In our office, one linux server has two VTUN tunnels
connected to our DCs
58 matches
Mail list logo
