From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Margula?= Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:05:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multipath routing Message-Id: <46668706.9080906@uznam.net.pl> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Piotr Chytla pisze: > First of all equal cost multipathing is evil ;>, It simply doesn't work f= or packets in > forwarding path besides support in kernel is not maintained >=20 > Realy if you want load balance both uplinks disable > CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED and you will have random traffic=20 > distribiution between both links. >=20 > More details :=20 > http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/14/50 > http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/12/76 > http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-users/2007-May/008469.= html > Oh. I see. Thanks. BTW: google doesn't show that links when looking for=20 multipath on linux :-) Random load sharing over multiple routes is not a good idea, or maybe is=20 it? Am I guessing right that with enough amount of traffic and having=20 two nexthops it will split 50%/50% ? > BGP always have alternative paths in BGP RIB and mostly don't insert them > as multipath route to FIB. >=20 > Of course there is path : http://lebon.org.ua/quagga.html that force=20 > route to be inserted to kernel with multiple gateways - but realy this > is some kind of dirty-hack. I know that site, but I thought that those patches were obsoleted,=20 because of --multipath option when compiling quagga. > Check thread 'Linux and BGP multipath' on quagga-dev, and especially this= mail: >=20 > http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2007-April/004700= .html I know that also :). BTW: until now I was quite pleased with linux=20 networking which quality is amazing. But now, when I need loadbalancing=20 I am disapointed, because it doesn't support things that with cisco=20 hardware you take for granted. I miss mostly recursive routes. Something like that ip route add 80.245.177.4/32 via 80.245.176.11 ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 80.245.177.4 It would solve problems with multipath bgp and loadbalancing because I=20 could add remove additional routes to 80.245.177.4 (or some other=20 imaginary loopback) and it would work as expected. I hope it will be added some day :) Thank you for your help! --=20 Micha=B3 Margula, alchemyx@uznam.net.pl, http://alchemyx.uznam.net.pl/ "W =BFyciu pi=EAkne s=B1 tylko chwile" [Ryszard Riedel] _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc