From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Szymon Mroofka Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:32:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Load-banancing. two ip's from one isp - solution Message-Id: <200603292132.31442.sawar@interia.pl> List-Id: References: <20060328013941.CB4311B58DB@poczta.interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20060328013941.CB4311B58DB@poczta.interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Dnia =B6roda, 29 marca 2006 20:18, William L. Thomson Jr. napisa=B3: > On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 19:12 +0200, sAwAr wrote: > > hi for those who was fallowing this topic I can say that > > > > IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED must be disabled! After few tests I'm quite > > sure that this was cousing my problems. Now I'm using 2.5.15 kernel > > without patch of Julian Anastasov and load-balancing is working. > > FYI those patches do allot of things. Like static routes, unplug an > interface or shut it down and watch all your routes and tables go away. > Much less all the stuff the alt routes patch addresses. I'll patch when I'll upgrading kernel or if there will be such need maby ve= ry=20 soon. For now I'm tired of compiling and instaling new kernel it takes too = long on my old and slow box ;). > > As for no nat? Interesting. > lucy ~ # iptables -L -nv -t nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 47557 packets, 5508K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source =20 destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 1484 packets, 116K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source =20 destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 1404 packets, 99243 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source =20 destination Yes... no nat needed. > > lartc split-access how to and http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt now both > > are working fine > > Yeah over all you are cool if the rules are correct, but if you have a > line go down or etc. You will want the prohibit line so a icmp message > is sent. My box is only used as a desktop so I don't need to care about any errors, = this will not couse any problem like in big networks or companys where peop= le=20 need to have access to the internet all the time. I thing I've done it by in my script: ip route append prohibit default table wew metric 1 proto static ip route append prohibit default table zew metric 1 proto static in my "new" routing tables. > > > Now I will try to use fwmark based routing and propably I will write > > with next problem soon :P > > Cool, that's one I have not done myself. Not found a need so far, been > able to do all I have need via other means. I'm using iptables to mark packets for htb so it should be easy to add few = new=20 rules and use it in routing... I hope it will be.... but I'm afraid that=20 becouse of I can't use PRERUTING chain (only local packets OUTPUT chain)=20 there may be some problems with it.... I'll check it soon.=20 Pozdrawiam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seksualna edukacja... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f191b _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc