Hi Erez, I'm not sure why you network acts like it's dead, but I can only assume that the route command you have used did something bad to the routing table (just a guess: maybe you need to execute: 'ip r del default' before?). Anyhow, what I do know (and from experience) is that the route command you have used is not sufficient to achieve your goal. I would try re-reading the NANO howto again (http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt)
Noam On 8/17/05, Erez D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > noam, > > first, thanks for your reply. > > i wrote the original mail after reading the howto. > i removed the tables, for debug simplicity. > i used ping, so there is no need for all the packages be sent to the same > interface as > ping is connectionless > > (anyway, linux cache the route and so will do send all packets from same > source and dest via the same interface, but this does not matter for what i > encountered with ping) > > anyway, when i did 'ping' - no packet went out of my interface. so this is > a more basic problem. > > i saw that in the past (year 2002), linux would declare the first interface > as dead. but this did not happen here. so it might be a variation on the od > bug - does not say it is dead, but act as it is. > > the original problem was solved by cahnging version of GCC when compiling > (i do not know if that refers to the kernel, or 'ip' command) > > 10x, > erez. > > On 8/17/05, Noam Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The command for itself is not enough. The problem is that you send one > > packet from interface A and the other from interface B. Each interface > > has a different IP and thus the target machine will not know how to > > handle it. (It's a bit more complicated, but n/m for now) > > > > What you need to achieve is that your linux machine will have one of > > the following mechanisms enabled: > > 1. use a roundrobin virtual interface - one on your linux, and one on > > other router somewhere in the internet (like your ISP for example) and > > will encapsulate your packets and send them on over the internet. - I > > assume that this is not what you wish. > > > > 2. Have your linux choose when to route from each interface & cache > > this route so that your TCP sessions (or other datagram protocols) > > will not be broken. - this is what the howto and patches are dealing > > with. (they route and cache according to the destination IP) > > In the end what you shall achieve from this is that when you send a > > packet your routing table will decide to send it in the following > > manner: > > a- if it's the first time you send packet to that IP, it will choose > > whether to use interface A or B and send the packet from there. > > b- if you already have that destination IP in your routing table > > cache, the packet will be routed from the same place it had been > > routed before. > > > > Uhm, this was a bad/good (choose what's true for you) attempt from me > > to explain what these howtos explain "on one foot". I suggest you'll > > go on reading these howtos and the nano howto. > > > > Noam > > > > > > On 8/17/05, Erez D <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > hi > > > > > > the command line i have used originated from > > > http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html > > > > > > about: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes > > > are you aware of a specific bug/patch relevant the command i issued, > > > or is it just a pointer to the patches available in general. > > > > > > 10x > > > > > > erez. > > > > > > On 8/17/05, Noam Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Erez, > > > > What you are requesting to do is not trivial, though not too > complicated. > > > > Basically I would suggest you'll read the following documents (the > > > > first has a link for the second, but it was worth mentioning here > > > > too): > > > > http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html > > > > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes > > > > > > > > The first one is one the sections of "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic > > > > Control HOWTO" > > > > The second is a page with some kernel patches that can help you > > > > achieve your goal. (It also points for what he calls nano's howto, > > > > which explains how to use these patches) > > > > > > > > goodluck, > > > > Noam > > > > > > > > On 8/16/05, Erez D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > hi > > > > > > > > > > i have 2 internet connetions: via eth3 and ppp0 > > > > > > > > > > i wanted to do load balancing so i did: > > > > > ip route add default nexthop via <ip1> dev eth3 weight1 nexthop via > > > <ip2> dev ppp0 weight 1 > > > > > > > > > > i test by pinging the internet > > > > > > > > > > i get funny results: > > > > > if the route was selected via ppp0 then it works > > > > > if the route was selected via eth3, then nothing is sent out > (tcpdump > > > shows nothing) > > > > > ( i know which route was selected by doing 'ip route show cache') > > > > > > > > > > if i swap the order of the interfaces in the above line, then ppp0 > does > > > not work and eth3 does > > > > > so it seems that routes through the first interface specified does > not > > > work > > > > > > > > > > however, if i only specify one of the interfaces (does not matter > > > which) then it works ok for it. > > > > > > > > > > any idea ? > > > > > > > > > > btw: my box is configured to do nat via ppp0, but not via eth3 (it > is > > > done further on the way at the isp) > > > > > > > > > > 10x, > > > > > erez. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
