Re: [LARTC] "Bug" in howto 4.2.1 Split access and other advice

[Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>]

	Hello,

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Ard van Breemen wrote:

> > 	Or more correctly, to specify the path between
> > each two subnets, the more specific rules and routes before the
> > others.
> Yes... I like. Although too complex for the users that do not
> know what we are talking about.

	Yes, I usually can't write good docs for the user's eyes :)

> > 	Yes, equalize does not work if the ISPs filter by src.
> > This flag is simply not in the kernel, only in user space.
> Well, it *does* work in this framework: we only need the
> multipath code to select a route, and therefore a source ip. Once
> we got the source ip, we will not hit the multipath route
> anymore due to the rules... And even if we did, there is a good
> chance it is still cached :).

	Yes, the route cache is the only place that remembers
these associations. But it is dangerous for the NAT conns, one
IP added and some of the connections can die selecting wrong src
IP after the cache is autoflushed.

> > 	This snafu is also fixed in 2.4.19pre8, it is even killed:
> > the multipath route is deleted due to SMP locking problems.
> Do you mean we cannot have multipaths anymore? Or that the fix
> was to remove the multipath route?

	Yes, the kernel removes the whole multipath route if
one device from a path is unregistered. Even without such
action from the kernel, the user is obligated to delete this
multipath route because if we register the same device name,
the nexthop will not switch from dead to alive. So, for 2.4 (I'm
not sure how the behaviour will change in 2.5 later) the
kernel removes the multipaths but note that we (the users)
always have to recreate the multipath routes with unregistered
devices.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

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