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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox