RE: [LARTC] Multipath route problem

[niels@wxn.nl]

I'm almost sure I don't need more NIC's... (only if you want to separate the
nets physically you do neet more NIC's)

With simple policy routing I already have a succesfull masquerading network
with Source Subnet X going through gateway 1 and Source subnet Y going
through gateway 2  (balancing the load based on subnet)

It even works if those 2 gateways are on totally different subnets! 

just add an extra IP adress to your interface like this:
#Ip addr add 10.50.50.10/24 dev eth0 brd 10.50.50.255

then add a second default route (for example to gateway 10.50.50.254) in
table (for example testtable) like this:
#Ip route add default dev eth0 via 10.50.50.254 table test

Then add a rule to use the table from (for example) a specific subnet
#Ip rule add pref 1000 table test from 192.168.0.0/16

And it's up and running!

SO, I'm sure load balancing (multi path routes) must also be possible

from the local machine I have it already working... so why not via
masquerading?

PS.. I read something about the "src" option in the route add command .. But
it didn't seem to help me out.



-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Scott [mailto:GregScott@InfraSupportEtc.com] 
Sent: 31 July 2002 17:15
To: niels@wxn.nl; lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: RE: [LARTC] Multipath route problem


> # ip route add default nexthop via 10.10.10.2 dev eth0 nexthop via 
> 10.10.10.1 dev eth0

I wonder if this is a problem going out over the same NIC to the two 
providers?  All the docs I can find show each provider on its own NIC.  

I am setting up something similar and was just about to ask if I can 
do it with one NIC connecting all the providers.  That would save me 
a bunch of precious PCI slots!
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/