Oh yeah, my bad!
Thanks Luciano for the solution.
Regards,
Vinod C
Jason Boxman wrote:
Vinod Chandran wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Jason for the solution. With CONNMARK, I was able to route the
packets properly.
Cool, but I don't think that was me.
__
Vinod Chandran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Jason for the solution. With CONNMARK, I was able to route the
> packets properly.
Cool, but I don't think that was me.
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
Hi,
Thanks Jason for the solution. With CONNMARK, I was able to route the
packets properly.
Yeah, the problem was seen only for SSH sessions, I didnot see the
problem with the Telnet and Ping sessions. TOS could be the answer to that.
The only change I had to do as far the CONNMARK solution
> "Jason" == Jason Boxman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> Luciano Ruete wrote:
>> Besides that, you need to solve the problems that multipath
>> will arise, like TOS situation described above or route cache
>> expiration, that could made long term conns to be routed over a
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 13:23, Jason Boxman wrote:
> Luciano Ruete wrote:
>
>
> > Besides that, you need to solve the problems that multipath will arise,
> > like TOS situation described above or route cache expiration, that could
> > made long
> > term conns to be routed over a new iface. The sol
Luciano Ruete wrote:
> Besides that, you need to solve the problems that multipath will arise, like
> TOS situation described above or route cache expiration, that could made
> long
> term conns to be routed over a new iface. The solutions i know are
> CONNMARK(kernel>=2.6.12) and julian's patc
RE: [LARTC] Problems with Routing and Masquerading
>AFAICR using MASQUERADE with multipath is not recommended (but maybe
>this
is outdated, plz correct me if I'm wrong)
I have had problems using MASQUERADE with multipath on a 2.4.31 kernel box,
with two outbound default routes I got m
>AFAICR using MASQUERADE with multipath is not recommended (but maybe this
is outdated, plz correct me if I'm wrong)
I have had problems using MASQUERADE with multipath on a 2.4.31 kernel box,
with two outbound default routes I got messages about "rustys brain broke"
and things like ICMP etc suffe
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 11:32, Vinod Chandran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a linux box which balances load between two interfaces ( say WAN1
> and WAN2). I have masquerading on for any request coming from LAN to the
> outside world.
If WAN ips are static, you can use
iptables -t nat ... -o WAN1 -j SNAT
Hi Erik,
Ip route get returns
192.168.26.73 via 192.168.19.76 dev eth1 src 192.168.19.29
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460
Here too it gives me WAN1s IP address which is the same as the
masqueraded one, but the packets are seen going out through WAN2.
Thanks and Regards,
Vinod C
Erik Slagter
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 20:02 +0530, Vinod Chandran wrote:
> It seems to me that the root of the problem is the creation of the two
> cache entries. Any idea why this happens, and how it can be avoided.
What does "ip route get" say? I think this tool will be the key to the
solution, look at the "sr
Hi,
I have a linux box which balances load between two interfaces ( say WAN1
and WAN2). I have masquerading on for any request coming from LAN to the
outside world.
The setup is in such a way that WAN1 drops packets with source ip
belonging to WAN2's network and viceversa.
For some strange r
12 matches
Mail list logo
