Re: [LARTC] ADSL channel boding or Load balancing

[Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>]

On 10/25/2007 1:06 PM, the sew wrote
>                +-----------+     +---------+
> +--------+     | ...245.18 +-----+ ...77.1 |     +-------+
> | ...0.x +-----+ ...0.1    |     |    COLO +-----+ 101.x |
> +--------+     | ...245.19 +-----+ ...78.1 |     +-------+
>                +-----------+     +---------+
> 
> Currently I'm natting on 0.1 ( -o ppp+ -j MASQUERADE ) , This was 
> setup by default as I did not want 0.x to be routed. I've however 
> taken off the natting, and added a route for 0.20/32 dev ppp62 
> nexthop dev ppp32 ( the 2 vpn interfaces) at COLO and obviously same 
> nexthop routes at 0.1 for 101.x

Ok, good.  The NATing at 0.1 was part of the problem.

> testing from 0.20, I scp a tar file over to 101.20 , still goes via 
> one line at time, the route cache which I disabled, just reroute it 
> the whole time( about every 5 sec) via the diffrent uplink, but not 
> to our result we want

Hum.  I would question the routes then.

> I use sysstat to check the speeds and tcpdump verified I its from 
> 0.20 -> 101.20 ssh

Ok.

> I understand now very clearly the key part.
> 
> My problem must be the tunnel, im sure im messing up,  the equal cost 
> multipath routing , am I using the right utitily? , still iproute2 
> right, or is iptables gonna play big part here as well?

To the best of my knowledge you will still be using the "ip" command 
from iproute2.  Will you please show us your routing table and / or the 
ip route command you are using to set up your ecmp route?



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