Re[3]: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
witam EQL, iproute. www.lartc.org ewentualnie mój wykład debian.black.pl/lgul/28/ przeczytalem i zabralem sie do pracy, oczywiscie wyskoczyl problem. echo 202 www.out /etc/iproute2/rt_tables ip route add 213.17.142.224/28 dev eth3 src 213.17.142.227 table www.out RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument iproute2 oczywiscie jest, na serwerze dziala htb. woody 2.4.18 + grsecurity w czym moze byc problem? z gory dzieki jr -- Best regards, amonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re[3]: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
w czym moze byc problem? w niewkompilowanej opcji w kernelu -- Pozdrawiam, Radosław 'Warden' Antoniuk | GG: 260746 ICQ:55423024 warden(at)debian.black.pl | #lgul #debian.pl #lms
route balancing vel bgp
Tak z rana sobie mysle. Mam 2 lacza. I chce zrobic cos takiego ze jak lezy jedno to wszystko leci przez drugie. Standard prawda? Ale bez routingu dynamicznego. Da się? Jakiś link? :) -- Pozdrawiam, Radosław 'Warden' Antoniuk | GG: 260746 ICQ:55423024 warden(at)debian.black.pl | #lgul #debian.pl #lms
Re: route balancing vel bgp
Hello Radosław, Saturday, June 14, 2003, 11:35:33 AM, you wrote: Tak z rana sobie mysle. Mam 2 lacza. I chce zrobic cos takiego ze jak lezy jedno to wszystko leci przez drugie. Standard prawda? Ale bez routingu dynamicznego. Da się? Jakiś link? :) tez mnie to interesuje. aha, a jak dziala routing dynamiczy w takim przypadku i co daje routing statyczny (jakie korzysci)? -- Best regards, Leafmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
Hello Radosław, Saturday, June 14, 2003, 11:35:33 AM, you wrote: Tak z rana sobie mysle. Mam 2 lacza. I chce zrobic cos takiego ze jak lezy jedno to wszystko leci przez drugie. Standard prawda? Ale bez routingu dynamicznego. Da się? Jakiś link? :) ja mysle nad innym problemem ale tez laczacym sie z powyzszym watkiem, mianowicie: mam dwa lacza od dwoch providerow, 2 numery ip, dwie karty sieciowe i chcialbym osiagnac taki rezultat: 1. zeby rozlozyc obciazenie przychodzace raz wybierany bylby jeden ip raz drugi ip z DNS - o ile pamietam mozna tak wpisac aby na zmiane byly wywolywane. 2. nie wiem jednak co sie stanie jezeli jedno z ip przestanie odpowiadac - czy wtedy automatycznie DNS poda to drugie? i teraz problem w druga strone - chcialbym zbalansowac ruch wychodzacy, 3. czy jest mozliwe aby nadawac pakiety z obydwu lacz rownoczesnie do klienta? 4. czy po awarii jednego z nich (np. pad bramki u providera) pakiety beda same szly tylko przez drugie lacze? tak mysle i jezeli zostanie spelniony punkt 1 i 2 to na 90% bylbym usatysfakcjonowany, gdyby 3 i 4 to na 100% :) Jezeli jakies glupoty napisalem to prosze mnie poprawic, ew. odeslac do jakiegos mana czy linka. Patrzylem na google ale nie wiem po jakim hasle wyszukiwac aby wyniki byly adekwatne do mojego problemu. -- Best regards, Leafmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
1. zeby rozlozyc obciazenie przychodzace raz wybierany bylby jeden ip raz drugi ip z DNS - o ile pamietam mozna tak wpisac aby na zmiane byly wywolywane. EQL, iproute. www.lartc.org ewentualnie mój wykład debian.black.pl/lgul/28/ -- Pozdrawiam, Radosław 'Warden' Antoniuk | GG: 260746 ICQ:55423024 warden(at)debian.black.pl | #lgul #debian.pl #lms
Re: route balancing vel bgp
Tak z rana sobie mysle. Mam 2 lacza. I chce zrobic cos takiego ze jak lezy jedno to wszystko leci przez drugie. Standard prawda? Ale bez routingu dynamicznego. Da się? Jakiś link? :) tez mnie to interesuje. aha, a jak dziala routing dynamiczy w takim przypadku i co daje routing statyczny (jakie korzysci)? Zaletą routingu statycznego jest prostota konfiguracji. Jeżeli coś nie gra, problem można rozwizać przekonfigurując 1 router. Mamy odcięty co najwyżej jeden segment sieci. Nie ma większego problemu ze znalezieniem tego właściwego routera. W rozwiązaniach hybrydowych lub dynamicznych problem == Duużo Nie Przespanych Nocy :( . Wystarczy jedna nieprawidłowa informacja uparcie powtarzana i bardzo możliwe, że nie wyjdziesz poza segment. Spróbuj jednak routować statycznie ruch w sieci z kilkudziesięcioma routerami i kilkoma bramkami... Pzdr Barthoosh
Re[2]: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
Hello Radosław, Saturday, June 14, 2003, 12:49:14 PM, you wrote: 1. zeby rozlozyc obciazenie przychodzace raz wybierany bylby jeden ip raz drugi ip z DNS - o ile pamietam mozna tak wpisac aby na zmiane byly wywolywane. EQL, iproute. www.lartc.org ewentualnie mój wykład debian.black.pl/lgul/28/ super, to dokladnie to czego potrzebowalem aby rozwiazac problem ruchu wychodzacego, ale mam pytanie - czy jak padnie wyjscie na swiat jednego z providerow, ale bramka bedzie odpowiadala, to czy caly ruch automatycznie bedzie wychodzil przez drugie lacze? Jeszcze pozostal problem z ruchem przychodzacym - czyli (o ile pamietam) wpisami w strefe 2 numerow IP... bede googlowal dalej ale jak ktos by mial pod reka jakis URL czy cos to bylbym wdzieczny. -- Best regards, Leafmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[3]: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
Hello Leaf, Saturday, June 14, 2003, 1:32:13 PM, you wrote: Jeszcze pozostal problem z ruchem przychodzacym - czyli (o ile pamietam) wpisami w strefe 2 numerow IP... bede googlowal dalej ale jak ktos by mial pod reka jakis URL czy cos to bylbym wdzieczny. sam sobie odpowiadam ;) wygooglalem takie cos: BIND supports load balancing between 2 or more IP addresses. Ping postoffice will ; Name TTL CLASS TYPE RR Data postoffice 300 IN A 10.0.0.2 300 IN A 10.0.0.3 The order will be: 10.0.0.2,10.0.0.3 and 10.0.0.3,10.0.0.2 and back to 10.0.0.2,10.0.0.3 and so on. bylbym sie tym zadowolil ale na innej stronie znalazlem niepokojacy tekst: Most clients will use the first record returned and discard the rest. Co mnie troche wpedzilo w konfuzje bo myslalem ze po prostu DNS zwraca JEDEN adres tylko ze za kazdym razem inny Czy moze mi ktos zatem powiedziec jak zrobic load-balancing ruchu przychodzacego ale dzialajacy na 100% ? Moze sie nie da? -- Best regards, Leafmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 02:11:20PM +0200, Leaf wrote: Co mnie troche wpedzilo w konfuzje bo myslalem ze po prostu DNS zwraca JEDEN adres tylko ze za kazdym razem inny Czy moze mi ktos zatem powiedziec jak zrobic load-balancing ruchu przychodzacego ale dzialajacy na 100% ? Moze sie nie da? Klient może sobie nagwizdać co najwyżej. To DNS zwraca różne adresy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])~$host skawina.eu.org skawina.eu.org has address 213.25.37.66 skawina.eu.org has address 80.48.213.66 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])~$host skawina.eu.org skawina.eu.org has address 80.48.213.66 skawina.eu.org has address 213.25.37.66 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])~$ pozdr, fEnIo -- _ Bartosz Feński aka fEnIo | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 _|_|_32-050 Skawina - Głowackiego 3/15 - w. małopolskie - Polska (0 0) phone:+48501608340 | ICQ:46704720 | GG:726362 | IRC:fEnIo ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001 pgp9kKLnEHxaR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
Użytkownik Leaf napisał: wygooglalem takie cos: BIND supports load balancing between 2 or more IP addresses. Ping postoffice will ; Name TTL CLASS TYPE RR Data postoffice 300 IN A 10.0.0.2 300 IN A 10.0.0.3 The order will be: 10.0.0.2,10.0.0.3 and 10.0.0.3,10.0.0.2 and back to 10.0.0.2,10.0.0.3 and so on. bylbym sie tym zadowolil ale na innej stronie znalazlem niepokojacy tekst: Most clients will use the first record returned and discard the rest. Co mnie troche wpedzilo w konfuzje bo myslalem ze po prostu DNS zwraca JEDEN adres tylko ze za kazdym razem inny Czy moze mi ktos zatem powiedziec jak zrobic load-balancing ruchu przychodzacego ale dzialajacy na 100% ? Moze sie nie da? To nie jest przeszkodą, bo: 1) jeśli klient weźmie pod uwagę tylko pierwszy wpis, to na zmianę otrzyma raz pierwszy adres a raz drugi, a o to chodziło 2) jeśli będzie brał pod uwagę oba adresy, ale będzie skonfigurowany, aby korzystać najpierw z pierwszego, to i tak wykorzysta prawie zawsze pierwszy, a przy nie odpowiadającym dopiero drugi 3) jeśli klient będzie tak skonfigurowany, aby brał pod uwagę otrzymywane adresy cyklicznie, to znaczy, że sam zapamiętuje otrzymywane adresy i sam rozłoży obciążenie. Problem pozostaje tylko z tym, który jeden raz zapyta o adres, a potem go udostępni innym lub sam będzie częstym klientem. Bertold
Re[2]: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
Hello Bartosz, Saturday, June 14, 2003, 2:41:01 PM, you wrote: Klient może sobie nagwizdać co najwyżej. To DNS zwraca różne adresy. Super :) Dzieki za wyjasnienie :) -- Best regards, Leafmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: route balancing vel bgp - chyba troszke inny problem
Hello Bertold, Saturday, June 14, 2003, 3:03:54 PM, you wrote: To nie jest przeszkodą, bo: 1) jeśli klient weźmie pod uwagę tylko pierwszy wpis, to na zmianę otrzyma raz pierwszy adres a raz drugi, a o to chodziło 2) jeśli będzie brał pod uwagę oba adresy, ale będzie skonfigurowany, aby korzystać najpierw z pierwszego, to i tak wykorzysta prawie zawsze pierwszy, a przy nie odpowiadającym dopiero drugi 3) jeśli klient będzie tak skonfigurowany, aby brał pod uwagę otrzymywane adresy cyklicznie, to znaczy, że sam zapamiętuje otrzymywane adresy i sam rozłoży obciążenie. Dzieki! Dokladnie o to mi chodzilo :) -- Best regards, Leafmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP
Just a note: AFAIK debs.fuller.edu does distribute gated .debs -- Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
Hi, Stephen == Stephen Zedalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Scott Ellis wrote: Nope. You need to sign a licence to distribute it at all (including in non-free) and Debian isn't willing to sign the licence (and you can't just have someone else sign the licence and then upload it to non-free). Stephen Hmm... Isn't it for things like this that the Debian board Stephen was created? And if the license is free, why don't they want Stephen to sign it? How can you say the licence is free? It seems abaout as restricitve as they can get without getting commercial. (free is not for no cost in this context) Stephen The current bo distribution has several packages Stephen of software that is just as dubious in licensing and of Stephen possibly less usefulness. merit-radius is just such an Stephen example. As far as I know it is commercial-ware put out by Stephen Merit. If this is the case, this is a major bug in the distribution. Stephen This is starting to smack of the same problems that Stephen the various BSD flavors have, ie. a particular committee Stephen slowly making decisions for the public good but seemingly Stephen out of touch with users needs. Well, since this committee is doing all the work, and you know what they are getting paid for it, I think they have a right, don't you? (the committee in question is the set of people who work on Debian, and public good has nothing to do with it) manoj -- The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 20:23 +0100 1998-02-23, Peter Paluch wrote: I would like to ask - is there any package which enables routing using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) ? I know that there is routed, but it doesn't seem to be able to use BGP. gated, but there is no Debian package for it due to licensing[1] (there was talk of doing an installer package, but nothing ever came of it). gated is available at http://www.gated.org/. There are 2 more packages under development that speak bgp: 1. MRT, see http://www.merit.edu/net-research/ 2. Zebra, see http://www.zebra.org/ Both are not as mature as gated but look promising. I am still waiting for both of them to get OSPF support, but that will probably take a lot longer .. Mike. -- Miquel van Smoorenburg | The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac lay in his bed [EMAIL PROTECTED] | awake all night wondering if there is a doG -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
On Mon, Feb 23, 1998 at 02:36:16PM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote: At 20:23 +0100 1998-02-23, Peter Paluch wrote: I would like to ask - is there any package which enables routing using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) ? I know that there is routed, but it doesn't seem to be able to use BGP. gated, but there is no Debian package for it due to licensing[1] (there was talk of doing an installer package, but nothing ever came of it). gated is available at http://www.gated.org/. [1] The gated consortium requires that groups who wish to distribute gated apply for a distribution license, such a license is free, but the DFSG requires that a license not be specifically for Debian. Could we then apply for a license and put it in non-free? It makes sense to me... People keep asking for gated. I'd like to play with it myself. Otherwise, perhaps some individual could apply for a license and then redistribute a .deb via FTP or HTTP. Jeff -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
At 19:22 -0600 1998-02-23, Jeff Noxon wrote: >On Mon, Feb 23, 1998 at 02:36:16PM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote: >> At 20:23 +0100 1998-02-23, Peter Paluch wrote: >> >I would like to ask - is there any package which enables routing using >> >BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) ? I know that there is routed, but it >> >doesn't seem to be able to use BGP. >> >> gated, but there is no Debian package for it due to licensing[1] (there was >> talk of doing an installer package, but nothing ever came of it). gated is >> available at http://www.gated.org/>. >> >> [1] The gated consortium requires that groups who wish to distribute gated >> apply for a distribution license, such a license is free, but the DFSG >> requires that a license not be specifically for Debian. > >Could we then apply for a license and put it in non-free? It makes sense >to me... People keep asking for gated. I'd like to play with it myself. I mentioned this on IRC (irc.debian.org; #debian) and here's the response: 17:44:58: * Espy notes that someone on -user asked about something capable of BGP, I mentioned gated(along with the distribution license stuff), someone else mailed me wondering why someone doesn't get a license and put a gated package in non-free. Should I bring this up in -devel again? 17:45:55: netgod> Espy: because a key part of gated has a license that you have to sign, to distribute it 17:46:17: netgod> Espy: this is what prompted debian to form a formal board of directors, who then decided debian wasnt going to sign any such document -- Joel Espy KleckerDebian GNU/Linux Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.espy.org/> ftp://ftp.espy.org/pub> God shows his contempt for wealth by the kind of person He selects to receive it. -- Austin O'Malley (1858-1952) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: gated, but there is no Debian package for it due to licensing[1] (there was talk of doing an installer package, but nothing ever came of it). gated is available at http://www.gated.org/. [1] The gated consortium requires that groups who wish to distribute gated apply for a distribution license, such a license is free, but the DFSG requires that a license not be specifically for Debian. Ok, but then it belongs in non-free right? gated is too important to NOT do it at all. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Peter Paluch wrote: Hello, friends, === I would like to ask - is there any package which enables routing using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) ? I know that there is routed, but it doesn't seem to be able to use BGP. gated, but there doesn't seem to be a debian package for it. RedHat is packaging gated now in 5.0. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Stephen Zedalis wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: gated, but there is no Debian package for it due to licensing[1] (there was talk of doing an installer package, but nothing ever came of it). gated is available at http://www.gated.org/. [1] The gated consortium requires that groups who wish to distribute gated apply for a distribution license, such a license is free, but the DFSG requires that a license not be specifically for Debian. Ok, but then it belongs in non-free right? Nope. You need to sign a licence to distribute it at all (including in non-free) and Debian isn't willing to sign the licence (and you can't just have someone else sign the licence and then upload it to non-free). gated is too important to NOT do it at all. While gated is important, it is more important for Debian to adhere to its stated policies and goals which are located at: http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html Gated source is out there, if you need it you can compile it and install it yourself (or build yourself a Debian package of it for your own use). -- Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Scott Ellis wrote: Nope. You need to sign a licence to distribute it at all (including in non-free) and Debian isn't willing to sign the licence (and you can't just have someone else sign the licence and then upload it to non-free). Hmm... Isn't it for things like this that the Debian board was created? And if the license is free, why don't they want to sign it? The current bo distribution has several packages of software that is just as dubious in licensing and of possibly less usefulness. merit-radius is just such an example. As far as I know it is commercial-ware put out by Merit. This is starting to smack of the same problems that the various BSD flavors have, ie. a particular committee slowly making decisions for the public good but seemingly out of touch with users needs. gated is too important to NOT do it at all. While gated is important, it is more important for Debian to adhere to its stated policies and goals which are located at: http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html Gated source is out there, if you need it you can compile it and install it yourself (or build yourself a Debian package of it for your own use). Good suggestions, but not having a robust routing daemon is gonna hurt in the long run for many applications. If Debian is dead set against gated, they need to look into incorporating alternatives with less onerous licensing, and/or supporting the development of alternatives. Maybe a GRD Project, (GNU Routing Daemon) or some similar alternative. Lets face it - routed sucks even for RIP and if we want to do cool things with IPv4 and IPv6 in the future, a routing daemon is going to be invaluable in the long run. Another problem is that the policies of the current Gated Consortium suck. They certainly are catering to big business, the only versions that are available without substantial contributions for source and distribution rights is the 3.x versions. And whenever you report a problem in 3.x, they recommend a newer version. This is one of those things that cries for a GPL'd alternative. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Stephen Zedalis wrote: On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Scott Ellis wrote: Nope. You need to sign a licence to distribute it at all (including in non-free) and Debian isn't willing to sign the licence (and you can't just have someone else sign the licence and then upload it to non-free). Hmm... Isn't it for things like this that the Debian board was created? And if the license is free, why don't they want to sign it? The current bo distribution has several packages of software that is just as dubious in licensing and of possibly less usefulness. merit-radius is just such an example. As far as I know it is commercial-ware put out by Merit. This is starting to smack of the same problems that the various BSD flavors have, ie. a particular committee slowly making decisions for the public good but seemingly out of touch with users needs. Debian and SPI have made a deliberate decision to NOT sign any licence. Did you read the social contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)? Signing a license is against everything we stand for. -- Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
BGP
Hello, friends, === I would like to ask - is there any package which enables routing using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) ? I know that there is routed, but it doesn't seem to be able to use BGP. Thanks a lot. Peter -- * * Peter Paluch * * Kukucinova 939/35 * * Kysucke Nove Mesto* * 024 01* * Slovakia, Europe * * - * * tlf: +421 826 421 2542* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: BGP
At 20:23 +0100 1998-02-23, Peter Paluch wrote: I would like to ask - is there any package which enables routing using BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) ? I know that there is routed, but it doesn't seem to be able to use BGP. gated, but there is no Debian package for it due to licensing[1] (there was talk of doing an installer package, but nothing ever came of it). gated is available at http://www.gated.org/. [1] The gated consortium requires that groups who wish to distribute gated apply for a distribution license, such a license is free, but the DFSG requires that a license not be specifically for Debian. -- Joel Espy Klecker Debian GNU/Linux Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.espy.org/ ftp://ftp.espy.org/pub/ Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good. -- Mohandas Ghandi -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
