Hi Norm, On 1/9/19 11:24 PM, Norman Henderson wrote: > Hi, We have several different real internet connections as well as > tunnels used for certain purposes. Some have "capped" volume and others > not; the ones that do not have different data rates; and all have > varying reliability. > > I'm having trouble understanding how the weight values work for the > options balance= and fallback= on a provider. > > I saw IP Route documentation suggesting that weights on "nexthop" > clauses (which are what get created by the cited options in the > providers file), are packet proportions i.e. > nexthop via x weight 1 > nexthop via y weight 10 > would send 10 packets over y for every packet sent over x > > However, experiments with the option balance= in shorewall providers > suggest that a lower number gives a higher priority to a particular > provider. > > Can someone give a clear explanation?
In Shorewall, the weights in 'nexthop' are only relevant to the first packet of each outgoing flow. Once an interface is picked, that interface is used for all outgoing packets of that flow. So it is *flows* that are distributed via those weights, and not *packets*. We take that approach to avoid sending packets with a source IP of one ISP out through the network of another ISP, as ISPs have a habit of dropping such packets. > > Also, I believe providers with option fallback=n are never used unless > all of the balance= providers are disabled, is that correct? Yes. > And then, > do the weights work the same way as for balance? > Yes. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with Shoreline, \ an international standard? Washington, USA \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't http://shorewall.org \ understand \_______________________________________________
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
