Mark,
This setup was to test a VPN gateway product using multiple tunnels.
The equipment I have can only test 3 tunnels, but my cuastomer can test
up to 11 simultaneously. Our QA team tests 1,5,10,15,50, & 100 tunnels
using this method. I orignally specified the gateway address for each
tunnel as well, but when my first test failed I asked my QA guy for his
test setup so I could replicate it. (we have different brands of packet
generator. The customer has the same one I do so they can't use QA's
instructions) I got his setup and he left out the gateways. I've
inculded the script below. Anyway, like I said, I've been refocused
onto other things as the customer was able to follow my original
instructions and generate 5 tunnel throughput numbers.
-Mike
"Software Engineering is that part of Computer Science which is too
difficult for the Computer Scientist." --— F. L. Bauer.
Script
----------------------------------------------
ifconfig eth0 192.168.10.21 > /dev/null 2>&1
ifconfig eth1 192.168.11.21 > /dev/null 2>&1
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
insmod n_hdlc > /dev/null 2>&1
killall linux_vp_client > /dev/null 2>&1
sleep 1
NUM_TUNNELS=25
i=1
while [ $i -le $NUM_TUNNELS ]
do
./linux_vp_client 192.168.10.100:443 192.168.19.`expr 200 +
$i`:192.168.19.200 EasyAccess::::admin &
sleep 5
route add -host 192.168.19.$i dev ppp`expr $i - 1`
i=`expr $i + 1`
done
echo done
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 07:47 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This sounds closest to what you are looking for so far. Each route can
> only have one gateway, or if there are two it has to choose - one or the
> other. So here you are specifiying the route.
>
> I was thinking client to site earlier ( split tunneling ) but this looks
> more like a site to site setup.. are you looking to add redundancy ?
> If this works I'd be interested to know how well it went. .. and if
> packets are flowing and one tunnel goes down how did it handle that ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> Bob Miller wrote:
>
> >Mike Cherba wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The only packets going in go to 10.0.0.3 and 10.0.0.4. No packet should
> >>show a destination address of 10.0.0.100. 10.0.0.100 is the IP of the
> >>other end of the ppp tunnels. It will always be the same for all
> >>tunnels. I will try deleting only 1 of the 2 routes and see if that
> >>helps, but I'f afraid that would weight things unfairly toward one
> >>tunnel.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh. I thought 10.0.0.{3,4} were the other ends of the tunnels.
> >Your routes to 10.0.0.{3,4} should specify a gateway, then.
> >
> > ip route add 10.0.0.3 via 10.0.0.100 dev ppp0
> > ip route add 10.0.0.4 via 10.0.0.100 dev ppp1
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> EUGLUG mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
