Hi there,
was my question(s) either:
A) too tough,
B) too easy,
C) poorly posed,
D) just too much
?
I didn't get any reply, yet.
How I'm expected to pose it?
Thanks,
-------------------------------------
Giampaolo Tomassoni - I.T. Consultant
Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4
I-53043 Chiusi (SI) - Italy
Tel/Ph: +39-0578-21100
MAI mandare un messaggio a:
NEVER send an e-mail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-net-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di Giampaolo Tomassoni
> Inviato: mercoledì 9 maggio 2007 20.43
> A: [email protected]
> Oggetto: 2.6.20 and multipath routing
>
> Hi there,
>
> this is yet-another-question about multipath routing.
>
> I would like to do load-balancing on traffic outgoing through two DSL
> lines.
>
> I would prefer to increase the bandwidth of each connection instead of
> just
> the total one, thereby I guess I'm looking for a packet-based multipath
> routing solution.
>
> Somewhere in the Net I found someone writing that I was needed to
> rebuild my
> 2.6.20 with CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=y and some
> CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_(RR|RANDOM|WRANDOM|DRR) in order to obtain
> this,
> since with CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=n I could only do
> connection-oriented multipath routing.
>
> Is this true? I did compile my 2.6.20 with multipath caching on and all
> the
> multipath policies as modules, but I seem unable to obtain what I want.
>
> My setup is the following:
>
> - linux-2.6.20 from Gentoo (sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.20-r8)
> - iproute2-2.6.20.20070313
> - two ClIP lines over ADSL
> - two ethernet cards
>
> eth0 is my local lan (say, 192.168.0.100/24), eth1 is my DMZ with two
> addresses (say, 1.1.1.6/29 and 1.2.1.6/29), atm0 is the ClIP interface
> (say,
> 1.1.2.1/24) to which my provider sends packet addressed to 1.1.1.0/29,
> while
> atm1 (say, 1.2.2.1/24) is the one receiving packets for 1.2.1.0/29.
>
> Isn't that easy? :)
>
> Ok, let me summarize:
>
> eth0: 192.168.0.100/24
> eth1: 1.2.1.6/29 (first address) and 1.1.1.6/29
> atm0: 1.1.2.1/24, point-to-point with 1.1.2.254, receives in
> behalf
> of 1.1.1.0/29
> atm1: 1.2.2.1/24, point-to-point with 1.2.2.254, receives in
> behalf
> of 1.2.1.0/29
>
> There are many services running in the router (smtp, http, https, pop3,
> imap, ftp, domain) which have to be accessed from Internet. It is
> basically
> much more an all-in-one box than just a router. So, I'm not actually
> interested in traffic to and from my DMZ, nor I am that much interested
> in
> having traffic from eth0 being dynamically MASQueraded with both the
> addresses of my DMZ. I would prefer to make things simple, so I decided
> that
> my outgoing address will always be 1.2.1.6, which is also the only
> address
> that "outside" knows to reach my services. The matter here is that I
> have
> plenty of downlink bandwidth per ADSL line, while I would like to
> obtain
> more uplink bandwidth.
>
> Thereby, after modprobing multipath_rr, I invoked this only, simple
> routing
> command:
>
> ip route add default src 1.2.1.6 mpath rr \
> nexthop via 1.2.2.254 dev atm1 \
> nexthop via 1.1.2.254 dev atm0
>
> I see this way that outgoing packets seem to route on a per-connection
> basis: once a connection decided a path, that is kept until the
> connection
> shuts down.
>
> Now the questions:
>
> 1) Is there any way to obtain a per-packed balancing?
>
> 2) Would setting CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=n help in this?
> I didn't (yet) try this latter because I'm quite sure it
> wouldn't
> help.
>
> 3) why do I need to pre-load multipath_rr?
>
> 4) when I do a "ip route list" I see:
>
> 1.2.1.0/29 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 1.2.1.6
> 1.1.1.0/29 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 1.1.1.6
> 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src
> 192.168.0.100
> 1.2.2.0/24 dev atm1 proto kernel scope link src 1.2.2.1
> 1.1.2.0/24 dev atm0 proto kernel scope link src 1.1.2.1
> 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
> default src 1.2.1.6
> nexthop via 1.2.2.254 dev atm0 weight 1
> nexthop via 1.1.2.254 dev atm1 weight 1
>
> See? The mpath I choose is not mentioned in the default route. Is
> it
> right?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> -------------------------------------
> Giampaolo Tomassoni - I.T. Consultant
> Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4
> I-53043 Chiusi (SI) - Italy
> Tel/Ph: +39-0578-21100
>
> MAI mandare un messaggio a:
> NEVER send an e-mail to:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
