From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: load balance [OT?] [Solution] Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:51:31 -0500 Message-ID: <48691D23.50402@riverviewtech.net> References: <1214492735.4427.6885.camel@kr0sty> <4866ECB1.2040903@riverviewtech.net> <1214832757.19463.40.camel@kr0sty> <4868ED10.3020506@riverviewtech.net> <1214840071.19463.112.camel@kr0sty> <48690289.2030909@riverviewtech.net> <1214843183.19463.149.camel@kr0sty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1214843183.19463.149.camel@kr0sty> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter On 06/30/08 11:26, Martin wrote: > In my case, loop won't happen, both gateways are internal of internet > carriers. Ok. > Sorry for the missed response, for some reason I think you were > asking me. Ah. No problem. I just wanted to make sure you weren't waiting on something from me. > And that's right, an arping can be more accurate for this cases. Arping will be sure you are testing the local segment, but pings can test further as long as you take in to account the possibility of looping. > Thanks for the tip, and really sorry for the misunderstood of your > mail. *nod* Grant. . . .