[LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Tom Lobato]

  Hello all!

  I applied http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/routes-2.6.8-10.diff patch to kernel
2.6.8.1 and it works fine, or almost fine. It does the load balancing
well, but when one link is dropped it continues to try it.
  At the end of http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt it is said to ping
gateway 1 and gateway 2, for the kernel to know if that route is
working, but since my linux is connected to the links through 1
dedicated link and one adsl modem, I tryied to:
    1) remove ethernet cable from linux nic: the patch worked well,
began to send traffic only to the yet working, link.
    2) remove telephone line from adsl modem (or external ethernet
cable from the dedic. link switch): the patch didn't work, continued
trying to send traffic to the dropped link.
  So, I think its happening because linux, since it can ping the
switch (or adsl modem) thinks that link is good.

  Did you have this problem? Some hint?
  Thank you!



  Tom Lobato
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Manish Kathuria]

On 1/19/07, Tom Lobato <tomlobato@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Hello all!
>
>   I applied http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/routes-2.6.8-10.diff patch to kernel
> 2.6.8.1 and it works fine, or almost fine. It does the load balancing
> well, but when one link is dropped it continues to try it.
>   At the end of http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt it is said to ping
> gateway 1 and gateway 2, for the kernel to know if that route is
> working, but since my linux is connected to the links through 1
> dedicated link and one adsl modem, I tryied to:
>     1) remove ethernet cable from linux nic: the patch worked well,
> began to send traffic only to the yet working, link.
>     2) remove telephone line from adsl modem (or external ethernet
> cable from the dedic. link switch): the patch didn't work, continued
> trying to send traffic to the dropped link.
>   So, I think its happening because linux, since it can ping the
> switch (or adsl modem) thinks that link is good.
>
>   Did you have this problem? Some hint?
>   Thank you!
>

My experience has been mixed. The patch worked very well in many cases
but in some it worked only if the first hop gateway was down and not
any of the subsequent hops. So as you mentioned its happening since it
can ping the switch / modem, it thinks the link is good. You can make
a script which will keep on running in the background and check it the
links are up or not and if any of the links is down, it can change the
default route and provide a failover.

-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Grant Taylor]

On 01/19/07 12:45, Manish Kathuria wrote:
> My experience has been mixed. The patch worked very well in many cases
> but in some it worked only if the first hop gateway was down and not
> any of the subsequent hops. So as you mentioned its happening since it
> can ping the switch / modem, it thinks the link is good. You can make
> a script which will keep on running in the background and check it the
> links are up or not and if any of the links is down, it can change the
> default route and provide a failover.

I have been tasked with writing such a script.  In my scenario, I'm 
taking it a bit further though.  I am planing on having my script test 
the actual service that I'm trying to connect to.  I.e. connect to port 
80 and request a page.  I'm having to go this route because I've had 
sporadic MTU issues in one of our (primary) paths.  The provider is 
suppose to be repairing the problem, however I need a solution before 
that can happen.

I am planing on writing a small daemon, probably in Perl, that will run 
the tests.  What I don't have a good way to do is alter the routing 
tables, short of shelling out and running ip directly.  I would like to 
know if any one knows of any other way to alter the routing tables / 
rules short of calling a shell command.



Grant. . . .
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Tom Lobato]

Hi! Thank you.


Manish Kathuria escreveu:
> On 1/19/07, Tom Lobato <tomlobato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>   Hello all!
>>
>>   I applied http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/routes-2.6.8-10.diff patch to kernel
>> 2.6.8.1 and it works fine, or almost fine. It does the load balancing
>> well, but when one link is dropped it continues to try it.
>>   At the end of http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt it is said to ping
>> gateway 1 and gateway 2, for the kernel to know if that route is
>> working, but since my linux is connected to the links through 1
>> dedicated link and one adsl modem, I tryied to:
>>     1) remove ethernet cable from linux nic: the patch worked well,
>> began to send traffic only to the yet working, link.
>>     2) remove telephone line from adsl modem (or external ethernet
>> cable from the dedic. link switch): the patch didn't work, continued
>> trying to send traffic to the dropped link.
>>   So, I think its happening because linux, since it can ping the
>> switch (or adsl modem) thinks that link is good.
>>
>>   Did you have this problem? Some hint?
>>   Thank you!
>>
>
> My experience has been mixed. The patch worked very well in many cases
> but in some it worked only if the first hop gateway was down and not
> any of the subsequent hops. So as you mentioned its happening since it
> can ping the switch / modem, it thinks the link is good. You can make
> a script which will keep on running in the background and check it the
> links are up or not and if any of the links is down, it can change the
> default route and provide a failover.
>

Oh yes, in really I already made such scripts, before to know this
patch, using
"4.2. Routing for multiple uplinks/providers" from Adv-Routing-HOWTO
information.
But facing this problem, I think the best solution is to use it again.

Somebody know if there is working in progress for solve this?
Is there some goal for include this patch to the mainstream kernel? What
is the possibility of it?



Tom Lobato



_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Manish Kathuria]

On 1/20/07, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net> wrote:
> On 01/19/07 12:45, Manish Kathuria wrote:
> > My experience has been mixed. The patch worked very well in many cases
> > but in some it worked only if the first hop gateway was down and not
> > any of the subsequent hops. So as you mentioned its happening since it
> > can ping the switch / modem, it thinks the link is good. You can make
> > a script which will keep on running in the background and check it the
> > links are up or not and if any of the links is down, it can change the
> > default route and provide a failover.
>
> I have been tasked with writing such a script.  In my scenario, I'm
> taking it a bit further though.  I am planing on having my script test
> the actual service that I'm trying to connect to.  I.e. connect to port
> 80 and request a page.  I'm having to go this route because I've had
> sporadic MTU issues in one of our (primary) paths.  The provider is
> suppose to be repairing the problem, however I need a solution before
> that can happen.

The method I have adopted is to use a shell script which pings a
popular remote site 's IP (for example www.yahoo.com or
www.google.com) through each of the interfaces every 10 seconds. The
default multipath route is replaced by a single default gateway if
reply is not received for 4 consecutive tries from one of the links.
This is to avoid very frequent failovers. However, the link is treated
as live as soon as a  ping reply is received and the multipath route
is activated.

-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Manish Kathuria]

On 1/27/07, Geoff Dornan <geoff@cmcnetworks.net> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can you post your script please?
>
> Cheers
> geoff
>

>
> On 1/20/07, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net> wrote:
> > On 01/19/07 12:45, Manish Kathuria wrote:
> > > My experience has been mixed. The patch worked very well in many
> cases
> > > but in some it worked only if the first hop gateway was down and not
> > > any of the subsequent hops. So as you mentioned its happening since
> it
> > > can ping the switch / modem, it thinks the link is good. You can
> make
> > > a script which will keep on running in the background and check it
> the
> > > links are up or not and if any of the links is down, it can change
> the
> > > default route and provide a failover.
> >
> > I have been tasked with writing such a script.  In my scenario, I'm
> > taking it a bit further though.  I am planing on having my script test
> > the actual service that I'm trying to connect to.  I.e. connect to
> port
> > 80 and request a page.  I'm having to go this route because I've had
> > sporadic MTU issues in one of our (primary) paths.  The provider is
> > suppose to be repairing the problem, however I need a solution before
> > that can happen.
>
> The method I have adopted is to use a shell script which pings a
> popular remote site 's IP (for example www.yahoo.com or
> www.google.com) through each of the interfaces every 10 seconds. The
> default multipath route is replaced by a single default gateway if
> reply is not received for 4 consecutive tries from one of the links.
> This is to avoid very frequent failovers. However, the link is treated
> as live as soon as a  ping reply is received and the multipath route
> is activated.
>

The script is appended. It assumes that you have followed the steps as
described in nano.txt with or without applying the patches. Though it
appears to be very simplistic, its working great at a number of
locations.

#!/bin/bash -x

TESTIP=www.yahoo.com
CHECK=0
ISPA=1
ISPB=1
LINKSTATUS=1
COUNTA=0
COUNTB=0
EXTIF1=eth1
EXTIF2=eth2
GW1\x172.16.1.1
GW2\x192.168.1.1
W1=1
W2=1

while : ; do

	ping -I $EXTIF1 -c 1 $TESTIP > /dev/null  2>&1
	RETVAL=$?
	if [ $RETVAL -ne 0 ]; then
		COUNTA=`expr $COUNTA + 1`
	else
		COUNTA=0
	fi

	if [ $COUNTA -ge 4 ]; then
		ISPA=0
	else
		ISPA=1
	fi

	ping -I $EXTIF2 -c 1 $TESTIP > /dev/null  2>&1
        RETVAL=$?
        if [ $RETVAL -ne 0 ]; then
                COUNTB=`expr $COUNTB + 1`
        else
                COUNTB=0
        fi

        if [ $COUNTB -ge 4 ]; then
                ISPB=0
        else
                ISPB=1
        fi


	if [ $ISPA -eq 1 ]; then
		if [ $ISPB -eq 1 ]; then
			NEWSTATUS=1
		elif [ $ISPB -eq 0 ]; then
			NEWSTATUS=2
		fi
	elif [ $ISPA -eq 0 ]; then
		if [ $ISPB -eq 1 ]; then
			NEWSTATUS=3
		fi
	fi
	
	case $LINKSTATUS in

	1)	if [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 2 ]; then
			ip route replace default via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1
		elif [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 3 ]; then
			ip route replace default via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2
		fi;;

	2)	if [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 1 ]; then
			ip route del default
			ip route replace default table 222 proto static \
				nexthop via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1 weight $W1\
				nexthop via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2 weight $W2
		elif [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 3 ]; then
			ip route replace default via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2
		fi;;

	3)	if [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 1 ]; then
			ip route del default
			ip route replace default table 222 proto static \
				nexthop via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1 weight $W1\
				nexthop via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2 weight $W2
		elif [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 2 ]; then
			ip route replace default via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1
		fi;;

	*)	echo;;
		
	esac

	LINKSTATUS=$NEWSTATUS
	sleep 10
done

Let me know if you can think of any improvements or modifications.

-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Tom Lobato]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --]

Hi!


Manish Kathuria Wrote:
>
>   The method I have adopted is to use a shell script which pings a
> popular remote site 's IP (for example www.yahoo.com or
> www.google.com) through each of the interfaces every 10 seconds. The
> default multipath route is replaced by a single default gateway if
> reply is not received for 4 consecutive tries from one of the links.
> This is to avoid very frequent failovers. However, the link is treated
> as live as soon as a  ping reply is received and the multipath route
> is activated.


Now I'm using the ping options:

    ping -n -w 10 -c 2 -I $lnk1_dev $lnk1_pingtarget

But so I'm getting some false negatives. Can you show what ping options you
use?




Tom Lobato

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1075 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Manish Kathuria]

On 1/28/07, Tom Lobato <tomlobato@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Manish Kathuria Wrote:
> >
> >   The method I have adopted is to use a shell script which pings a
> > popular remote site 's IP (for example www.yahoo.com or
> > www.google.com) through each of the interfaces every 10 seconds. The
> > default multipath route is replaced by a single default gateway if
> > reply is not received for 4 consecutive tries from one of the links.
> > This is to avoid very frequent failovers. However, the link is treated
> > as live as soon as a  ping reply is received and the multipath route
> > is activated.
>  Now I'm using the ping options:
>
>     ping -n -w 10 -c 2 -I $lnk1_dev $lnk1_pingtarget
>
> But so I'm getting some false negatives. Can you show what ping options you
> use?
> Tom Lobato
>

Please see the script posted earlier. The simple ping command with the
following options is repeated every 10 seconds using an endless loop.

ping -I $EXTIF1 -c 1 $TESTIP > /dev/null  2>&1

-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Tom Lobato]

  Hi!

  Thank you for the script. I'm trying it.

  Well, I made a simple modification and would like to hear opnions.
  Until now, I just added one more TESTIP, so I'm pinging one IP for each link. 
  Also I'm using the IP instead name address, and used the DNS IP of each provider
for the ping. I made this because the ping to external sites (yahoo, google) is too slow
here, mainly when the link is under heavy load. So I'm afraid it can try ping 
without success and "think" the link is down.
  Also, for don't get falses 'link down', did you tried to increase the number of 4
ping fails before replace the route? What do you think about?

  I appreciate suggestions,


  PS: although alteration be so simple, if someone want to see, tell me and I send a mail.



  Tom Lobato



Manish Kathuria wrote: 

> The script is appended. It assumes that you have followed the steps as
> described in nano.txt with or without applying the patches. Though it
> appears to be very simplistic, its working great at a number of
> locations.
>
> #!/bin/bash -x
>
> TESTIP=www.yahoo.com
> CHECK=0
> ISPA=1
> ISPB=1
> LINKSTATUS=1
> COUNTA=0
> COUNTB=0
> EXTIF1=eth1
> EXTIF2=eth2
> GW1\x172.16.1.1
> GW2\x192.168.1.1
> W1=1
> W2=1
>
> while : ; do
>
>         ping -I $EXTIF1 -c 1 $TESTIP > /dev/null  2>&1
>         RETVAL=$?
>         if [ $RETVAL -ne 0 ]; then
>                 COUNTA=`expr $COUNTA + 1`
>         else
>                 COUNTA=0
>         fi
>
>         if [ $COUNTA -ge 4 ]; then
>                 ISPA=0
>         else
>                 ISPA=1
>         fi
>
>         ping -I $EXTIF2 -c 1 $TESTIP > /dev/null  2>&1
>        RETVAL=$?
>        if [ $RETVAL -ne 0 ]; then
>                COUNTB=`expr $COUNTB + 1`
>        else
>                COUNTB=0
>        fi
>
>        if [ $COUNTB -ge 4 ]; then
>                ISPB=0
>        else
>                ISPB=1
>        fi
>
>
>         if [ $ISPA -eq 1 ]; then
>                 if [ $ISPB -eq 1 ]; then
>                         NEWSTATUS=1
>                 elif [ $ISPB -eq 0 ]; then
>                         NEWSTATUS=2
>                 fi
>         elif [ $ISPA -eq 0 ]; then
>                 if [ $ISPB -eq 1 ]; then
>                         NEWSTATUS=3
>                 fi
>         fi
>         
>         case $LINKSTATUS in
>
>         1)      if [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 2 ]; then
>                         ip route replace default via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1
>                 elif [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 3 ]; then
>                         ip route replace default via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2
>                 fi;;
>
>         2)      if [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 1 ]; then
>                         ip route del default
>                         ip route replace default table 222 proto static \
>                                 nexthop via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1 weight $W1\
>                                 nexthop via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2 weight $W2
>                 elif [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 3 ]; then
>                         ip route replace default via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2
>                 fi;;
>
>         3)      if [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 1 ]; then
>                         ip route del default
>                         ip route replace default table 222 proto static \
>                                 nexthop via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1 weight $W1\
>                                 nexthop via $GW2 dev $EXTIF2 weight $W2
>                 elif [ $NEWSTATUS -eq 2 ]; then
>                         ip route replace default via $GW1 dev $EXTIF1
>                 fi;;
>
>         *)      echo;;
>                 
>         esac
>
>         LINKSTATUS=$NEWSTATUS
>         sleep 10
> done
>
> Let me know if you can think of any improvements or modifications.
>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Manish Kathuria]

On 2/8/07, Tom Lobato <tomlobato@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Thank you for the script. I'm trying it.
>
>   Well, I made a simple modification and would like to hear opnions.
>   Until now, I just added one more TESTIP, so I'm pinging one IP for each link.
>   Also I'm using the IP instead name address, and used the DNS IP of each provider
> for the ping. I made this because the ping to external sites (yahoo, google) is too slow
> here, mainly when the link is under heavy load. So I'm afraid it can try ping
> without success and "think" the link is down.

I just used a popular external site because it may happen that
connectivity from your location to the provider's DNS is there but the
provider's link with the rest of the internet is down so even if you
get a successful ping reply, the link isn't working in the real sense.
Also, I preferred using a name instead of IP address because there
could be multiple IP addresses associated with the site name and they
can change too. But I don't see anything wrong in your approach. What
do you mean by slow ? I don't think ping reply time should be an
issue. We are more concerned with the success. Obviously, it should
not time out.

The ping reply times I get here for sites like www.yahoo.com and
www.google.com are to the tune of 300 ms.

You can increase the pin
>   Also, for don't get falses 'link down', did you tried to increase the number of 4
> ping fails before replace the route? What do you think about?
>

4 successful ping fails means that the link has been down for anywhere
between 40-50 seconds which I think was a sufficient time interval to
carry a failover. But you can increase it depending upon your
requirements. For restoring the link, the script doesn't wait for that
much time.

>   PS: although alteration be so simple, if someone want to see, tell me and I send a mail.
>   Tom Lobato

It would be great to see your final script.


-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Tom Lobato]

Manish Kathuria escreveu:
> On 2/8/07, Tom Lobato <tomlobato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   Thank you for the script. I'm trying it.
>>
>>   Well, I made a simple modification and would like to hear opnions.
>>   Until now, I just added one more TESTIP, so I'm pinging one IP for 
>> each link.
>>   Also I'm using the IP instead name address, and used the DNS IP of 
>> each provider
>> for the ping. I made this because the ping to external sites (yahoo, 
>> google) is too slow
>> here, mainly when the link is under heavy load. So I'm afraid it can 
>> try ping
>> without success and "think" the link is down.
>
> I just used a popular external site because it may happen that
> connectivity from your location to the provider's DNS is there but the
> provider's link with the rest of the internet is down so even if you
> get a successful ping reply, the link isn't working in the real sense.

ok, I noted here my DNS server block pings (!) so I'm also using a site now.


> Also, I preferred using a name instead of IP address because there
> could be multiple IP addresses associated with the site name and they
> can change too. But I don't see anything wrong in your approach. What
> do you mean by slow ? I don't think ping reply time should be an
> issue. We are more concerned with the success. Obviously, it should
> not time out.

I agree, but here "slow = timeout" =) I'm suspecting the adsl modem is the
problem. I have two dynamic IP links, adsl/pppoe 400kbps and
cable-modem/dhcp 4Mbps.

Anyway, I changed my mind and will connect links directly to linux (no 
routers), with
the drawback of not have fixed IP/GW/MASK/NET's, but with advantages of 
need no routers,
need no port forwarding in routers, a more auto-sufficient solution.

So, I'm using your script as base (although I had made another, I liked 
yours), making scripts
for dhcp and pppoe create files with connection info, from where it 
reads data for set LB. If
someone more wants it, tell me and I send a mail.

I know I could apply the patchs and these scripts would too more simple, 
but the patch
does not detect fail if it is beyond the gateway.


>
> The ping reply times I get here for sites like www.yahoo.com and
> www.google.com are to the tune of 300 ms.

Here, without any internet use from localnet, i get ~150ms for both. So, 
really,
it appears I have another problem, not ping delay. Maybe too load on 
adsl link, although
I set weights 10 for cable link and 1 for adsl.





Tom Lobato
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Salim S I]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

I have a doubt. If you use such a script monitoring the link status with
ping and then reconfiguring, why do you need the DGD patch? You need to
do some reconfiguration (change multipath to a single default route)
anyway if you use the script, right?
 
Also, the DGD patch uses src to lookup the routing table entry, but if
you have a dynamic IP for the WAN interface (PPPoE, DHCP etc), this
approach is bound to fail, right?

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3999 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Manish Kathuria]

On 5/11/07, Salim S I <salim.si@cipherium.com.tw> wrote:

>
> I have a doubt. If you use such a script monitoring the link status with
> ping and then reconfiguring, why do you need the DGD patch? You need to do
> some reconfiguration (change multipath to a single default route) anyway if
> you use the script, right?

The patches take care of many other issues also. Please refer to the
archives here:

http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2007q1/020403.html


-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

RE: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

[Salim S I]

I had followed that discussion, but my doubt remains. For MASQUERADE
too, it depends on the 'src' parameter, which was configured statically.
But after the interface comes up with a new address, the initial
configuration will be invalid because 'src' is not correct anymore, it
seems...Or have I have misunderstood the concept?

-----Original Message-----
From: Manish Kathuria [mailto:mkathuria@tuxtechnologies.co.in] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Salim S I
Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl; tomlobato@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [LARTC] DGD patch not detecting dead gateway

On 5/11/07, Salim S I <salim.si@cipherium.com.tw> wrote:

>
> I have a doubt. If you use such a script monitoring the link status
with
> ping and then reconfiguring, why do you need the DGD patch? You need
to do
> some reconfiguration (change multipath to a single default route)
anyway if
> you use the script, right?

The patches take care of many other issues also. Please refer to the
archives here:

http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2007q1/020403.html


-- 
Manish Kathuria
Tux Technologies
http://www.tuxtechnologies.co.in/


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc