All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Steen Suder, privat" <steen@suder.dk>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [LARTC] Sch_teql or multilink def. gw?
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:15:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-103974215510281@msgid-missing> (raw)

I'm to build a "bundlerbox" spanning over two or more DSLlines as 
outlined in the <http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt>.

The idea is to multiplex a LAN over e.g. four cheap DSLs, SNATing it in 
the action. The DSLs are from different ISPs, but all equal in speed 
(2048/512Kb/s).

Now, it has come to my attention that there exist a tc-module called 
sch_teql.

As I understand it sch_teql + SNAT on each device will functionally be 
the same as the

"ip rule add prio 222 table 222
ip route add default table 222 proto static \
		nexthop via GWE1 dev IFE1 \
		nexthop via GWE2 dev IFE2" -thing from nano.txt.

Which one is the better one in terms of overall performance, usability 
and stability seen from a users perspective?

I know that there has been several questions regarding "cheap 
line"-multiplexing, but I couldn't a definitive answer to my question.

Either that or I havn't really understood what sch_teql does and how it 
could be utilized.

Another, though related question:

The multilink def. gw-example above does gw-selection on a per-session 
basis, as I've understood it.
The keyword "equalize" as in
"ip route add default equalize nexthop via gateway.number.1.ip \
	dev eth0 nexthop via gateway.number.2.ip dev eth1"

chooses routes on per-packet basis.
Can they both be used for my "box"? Why/Why not?

-- 
Steen Suder

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

                 reply	other threads:[~2002-12-13  1:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=marc-lartc-103974215510281@msgid-missing \
    --to=steen@suder.dk \
    --cc=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.