Re: [LARTC] Multipath, 2.4.16 + Julian's patches.

From: Adrian Chung <adrian@enfusion-group.com>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multipath, 2.4.16 + Julian's patches.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:09:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-100834263616366@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-100831072321841@msgid-missing>

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 10:00:34AM -0500, Adrian Chung wrote:
> The weird thing is, even with this rule:
> 
> [root@wolverine /]# ip route show table 222
> 24.0.0.0/8  proto static
>         nexthop via 24.112.58.1  dev eth1 weight 2
>         nexthop via 216.187.106.252  dev eth2 weight 1
> default  proto static
>         nexthop via 216.187.106.252  dev eth2 weight 2
>         nexthop via 24.112.58.1  dev eth1 weight 1

[...]

> [root@wolverine /]# ip route get from 192.62.100.1 to 24.112.58.7
> 24.112.58.7 from 192.62.100.1 dev eth1
>     cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460
> [root@wolverine /]# ip route get from 192.62.100.1 to 24.100.155.45
> 24.100.155.45 from 192.62.100.1 via 216.187.106.252 dev eth2
>     cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460
> 
> The last one is going out via eth2, instead of eth1, even though eth1
> is still up?

Actually, I should add that even regular routes that don't go through
24.0.0.0/8 are affected, and don't seem to be using the "weights"
properly...  This is from a linux client that is behind the gateway,
showing some consecutive traceroutes.  I removed the 24.0.0.0/8 rule
from table 222 above, and ran 'ip route flush cache':

adrian@toad:[~]
$ traceroute mail.e-smith.com
traceroute to mail.e-smith.com (64.26.145.90), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  wolverine (192.62.100.1)  0.499 ms  0.235 ms  0.211 ms
 2  ott-fe0.istop.com (216.187.106.252)  24.974 ms  7.367 ms  7.573 ms
 3  tor-fe1.istop.com (216.187.106.1)  23.876 ms  18.536 ms  20.356 ms

This traversed eth2, which is good...

adrian@toad:[~]
$ traceroute www.shore.net
traceroute to www.shore.net (207.244.124.202), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  wolverine (192.62.100.1)  0.453 ms  0.233 ms  0.212 ms
 2  10.21.172.1 (10.21.172.1)  2.808 ms  23.383 ms  6.237 ms
 3  216.197.153.101 (216.197.153.101)  22.176 ms  2.000 ms  4.217 ms
 4  bb2-pos7-0.rdc2.on.home.net (216.197.153.97)  10.625 ms  9.390 ms
7.087 ms

This traversed eth1, which shouldn't happen if weight is 2 for eth2,
right?

adrian@toad:[~]
$ traceroute 24.2.9.58
traceroute to 24.2.9.58 (24.2.9.58), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
 1  wolverine (192.62.100.1)  0.494 ms  0.295 ms  0.220 ms
 2  ott-fe0.istop.com (216.187.106.252)  26.908 ms  7.888 ms  11.428
ms
 3  tor-fe1.istop.com (216.187.106.1)  32.210 ms  21.756 ms  20.785 ms

This went out over eth2 again...

adrian@toad:[~]
$ traceroute 24.2.9.59
traceroute to 24.2.9.59 (24.2.9.59), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
 1  wolverine (192.62.100.1)  0.591 ms  0.277 ms  0.220 ms
 2  10.21.172.1 (10.21.172.1)  26.389 ms  1.614 ms  3.975 ms
 3  216.197.153.101 (216.197.153.101)  5.120 ms  6.755 ms  17.854 ms
 4  bb2-pos7-0.rdc2.on.home.net (216.197.153.97)  10.264 ms  18.565 ms
 16.043 ms
 5  10.0.185.21 (10.0.185.21)  10.566 ms  19.751 ms !H

This went out over the right interface (eth1).

--
Adrian Chung (adrian at enfusion-group dot com)
http://www.enfusion-group.com/~adrian
GPG Fingerprint: C620 C8EA 86BA 79CC 384C E7BE A10C 353B 919D 1A17
[rogue.enfusion-group.com] up 134 days, 2:05, 2 users

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/