From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Steen Suder, privat" Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:15:16 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Sch_teql or multilink def. gw? Message-Id: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org I'm to build a "bundlerbox" spanning over two or more DSLlines as outlined in the . 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/