Re: [LARTC] multiple links and nat

From: gypsy <gypsy@iswest.com>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] multiple links and nat
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:02:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43BF4B7E.CC12537A@iswest.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <w52u0cipssd.fsf@lame.message.id>

seph wrote:
> 
> I was hoping to avoid having to patch things. I'll take a look at
> mpath and see what I want to do.
> 
> If it really does need patching than I think the howto should be
> updated to reflect that.
> 
> seph

Seph,
The HOWTO has not been updated in years.  Who knows when, if ever, it
will be?  Robert is correct.
--
gypsy
> Robert Kurjata <rkurjata@ire.pw.edu.pl> writes:
> 
> > Witaj Edmundo,
> >
> > W Twoim li�cie datowanym 5 stycznia 2006 (17:21:52) mo¿na przeczytaæ:
> >
> > Please consult: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes and my example scpript
> > mpath2.sh published there.
> >
> > Without those patches - it just doesn't work :)
> >
> >
> >> The problem (as usual) is the change of route the routing box is doing
> >> for connections already stablished.
> >
> >> Maybe you can try using separate routing tablewith  a single internet
> >> link for ssh (policy routing).
> >
> >> On 1/5/06, seph <seph@directionless.org> wrote:
> >>> Hi, this might be a dumb question, but I'm not finding much
> >>> information online.
> >>>
> >>> I'm trying to setup a 2.6 linux box to run nat across multiple
> >>> upstream links as a simple way to aggregate bandwidth. I found the
> >>> instructions in lartc section 4.2
> >>> (http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html) fairly clear
> >>> and straightforward. I implemented those, and a couple of trivial
> >>> iptables commands and tried it.
> >>>
> >>> Persistent masqueraded connections (like ssh) weren't very happy. The
> >>> frequently hung, and I saw the "MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere
> >>> else." error. googling for that, I see lots of suggestions to use
> >>> connmark, but no examples of how connmark and the multiple link stuff
> >>> interact. Does anyone have a pointer?
> >>>
> >>> The rules I'm using are roughly:
> >>>
> >>> /sbin/ip route add P1_NET dev IF1 src IP1 table 201
> >>> /sbin/ip route add default via P1 table 201
> >>> /sbin/ip route add P1_NET dev IF1 src IP1
> >>> /sbin/ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table 201
> >>> /sbin/ip rule add from IP1 table 201
> >>> /sbin/ip route add P2_NET dev IF2 src IP2 table 202
> >>> /sbin/ip route add default via P2 table 202
> >>> /sbin/ip route add P2_NET dev IF2 src IP2
> >>> /sbin/ip route add 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table 202
> >>> /sbin/ip rule add from IP2 table 202
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /sbin/ip route del default
> >>> /sbin/ip route add default scope global nexthop via P1 dev IF1 weight 1 nexthop via P2 dev IF2 weight 4
> >>> /sbin/ip route flush cache
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s LOCALNET -d P1_NET -j ACCEPT
> >>> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s LOCALNET -d P2_NET -j ACCEPT
> >>> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o IF1 -s LOCALNET -j MASQUERADE
> >>> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o IF2 -s LOCALNET -j MASQUERADE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>> seph
> > --
> > Pozdrowienia,
> >  Robert Kurjata
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc