Re: eql = tun + eth0
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:34:00PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Have a look at ... for more information > Sorry :) Forgot to paste in URL's http://qos.ittc.ukans.edu/ http://www.qosforum.com/docs/faq/ http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/linux/qos_tc/ http://qos.ittc.ukans.edu/howto/ http://www.ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/ Kind Regards Crispin
Re: eql = tun + eth0
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 12:45:24PM +0700, Oki DZ wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In TCP/IP we only have control of our outgoing traffic. Thus your > > connections will be set up via one or the other. Say your wireless > > device is 128k and your modem is 56k. With this sort of primative > > balancing you initiate a download. It comes down at 56k. It doesn't get > > any faster. Then you start another. It comes in at 128K with the first > > still going at 56K. You will *never* get a 184K download. Each > > connection is identified by its source and dest ip's and your IP's are > > different. > > I think that would be OK, as long as I can utilize both links; say, web > traffic via the wireless link, and the other via the modem. > > I have take a look into iproute doc, and to have two default routes is > as simple as: > ip route add default nexthop eth0 nexthop ppp0 > > Question is, really? > I read somewhere on the Net that by having that configuration, you'd get > outgoing traffic via both devices, but incoming via the first one. > > Would it be easier just to split the traffic according to the protocols? > Say, email through eth0 and web through the ppp0. Maybe the use of the > links wouldn't be that optimal, but at least I can get some additional > bandwidth. But what about that "default route"; how can I set it up after > I split the traffic? The best way to do this is again QoS. You create queues for your traffic, each with a queueing discipline. eg. You might have an email queue, a web queue, an emergency packet queue (which gets priority for low-latency. eg. gaming packets, shell traffic) and an everything else queue. You can control where these queues go and what the queueing method is, and how things are sorted in the queue. You then use classifyers to classify your traffic into these queues. So create a set of rules that match email, that match web, that match priority packets, and everything else. Classifiers are good because you can classify based on so many things, not just destination IP or port. You can build many hierachal levels of these. Queues that empty into queues that empty into... You may choose to dump these queues into two pFIFO queues, one for ppp0 and one for eth0. A lot of it is trial and error, testing and running a sniffer on the links to see how things are being handled. Have a look at ... for more information As for the return paths, if the packets going out ppp0 have a source ip of ppp0 and the packets going out eth0 have a source ip of eth0, then the return traffic will be (quasi) balanced across the two links according to how the outgoing was balanced. So if your POP3 requests are going out via ppp0 with its IP as source IP then the downloaded mail will be coming back via that link. Its definately do-able. There's a bit of work involved, a lot of crazy command lines you've never ever seen before. The documentation is a bit light on the howto or tutorial side of things, but if you understand the basics, and are patient, theres no reason why it cant be done. A lot of the docs say they are for 2.4 series kernels, but they can equaly be applied to 2.2 series. Kind Regards Crispin
Re: eql = tun + eth0
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In TCP/IP we only have control of our outgoing traffic. Thus your > connections will be set up via one or the other. Say your wireless > device is 128k and your modem is 56k. With this sort of primative > balancing you initiate a download. It comes down at 56k. It doesn't get > any faster. Then you start another. It comes in at 128K with the first > still going at 56K. You will *never* get a 184K download. Each > connection is identified by its source and dest ip's and your IP's are > different. I think that would be OK, as long as I can utilize both links; say, web traffic via the wireless link, and the other via the modem. I have take a look into iproute doc, and to have two default routes is as simple as: ip route add default nexthop eth0 nexthop ppp0 Question is, really? I read somewhere on the Net that by having that configuration, you'd get outgoing traffic via both devices, but incoming via the first one. Would it be easier just to split the traffic according to the protocols? Say, email through eth0 and web through the ppp0. Maybe the use of the links wouldn't be that optimal, but at least I can get some additional bandwidth. But what about that "default route"; how can I set it up after I split the traffic? Oki
Re: eql = tun + eth0
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 08:58:32AM +0700, Oki DZ wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Recently I gave eql a try to spread load across two links that I > > controlled both ends of. I had lots of problems and I believe eql has > > not been actively maintained in the kernel for a long time. The > > enslaving of links works for outbound, but not for inbound traffic. I > > was able to use the /proc/.../rp_filter set to 0 to allow the > > backtraffic through, but it was in no way 'balanced'. > > > But my problem is how to split traffic to the Internet via two devices. > The first one, eth0 is a wireless device, the second one tunl0 is a > IP tunnel (which I have to set up yet) via a ppp0 device on another > machine (the ppp0 connects to an ISP). > > The main idea is how to add more bandwidth to that eth0 using the modem, > but I don't want to have a lot of editing on the firewall/NAT scripts > (that are already on the machine which has the eth0). The problem is that the eth0 and ppp0 (and thus tunl0) have different IP numbers and look to the routing infrastructure of the internet like two different computers. A packet leaving your site will have to choose one of them as its source IP. The return packets for that connection will have their dest IP set to that source IP and will be routed through the net accordingly to either your eth0 or ppp0. They wont be split between the two. In TCP/IP we only have control of our outgoing traffic. Thus your connections will be set up via one or the other. Say your wireless device is 128k and your modem is 56k. With this sort of primative balancing you initiate a download. It comes down at 56k. It doesn't get any faster. Then you start another. It comes in at 128K with the first still going at 56K. You will *never* get a 184K download. Each connection is identified by its source and dest ip's and your IP's are different. If you control both ends of the link then you can achieve the 184K, by re-bundling the connection on the other side. So then both links end in the same IP's on the same machine at the ISP. There are other ways of doing this but your ISP has to co-operate. OSPF equal cost multipath is one way (but the links must be similar speed) and full BGP4 is another (but you'll need an ASN and its a crazy amount of work.) Kind Regards Crispin
Re: eql = tun + eth0
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Recently I gave eql a try to spread load across two links that I > controlled both ends of. I had lots of problems and I believe eql has > not been actively maintained in the kernel for a long time. The > enslaving of links works for outbound, but not for inbound traffic. I > was able to use the /proc/.../rp_filter set to 0 to allow the > backtraffic through, but it was in no way 'balanced'. > But my problem is how to split traffic to the Internet via two devices. The first one, eth0 is a wireless device, the second one tunl0 is a IP tunnel (which I have to set up yet) via a ppp0 device on another machine (the ppp0 connects to an ISP). The main idea is how to add more bandwidth to that eth0 using the modem, but I don't want to have a lot of editing on the firewall/NAT scripts (that are already on the machine which has the eth0). Oki
Re: eql = tun + eth0
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 04:18:56PM +0700, Oki DZ wrote: > Hi, > > Would it be possible to bind /dev/tunl0 and /dev/eth0 under eql? I mean, > I'd like to have more bandwidth out from both devices. > The packets will traverse two different default routes, I guess. > Recently I gave eql a try to spread load across two links that I controlled both ends of. I had lots of problems and I believe eql has not been actively maintained in the kernel for a long time. The enslaving of links works for outbound, but not for inbound traffic. I was able to use the /proc/.../rp_filter set to 0 to allow the backtraffic through, but it was in no way 'balanced'. Then I used the teql queueing discipline in the QoS services. This works much better, is more configurable and actively maintained and documented. Basically eql is a poor mans teql. So I suggest reading up on the QoS support in the kernel. It also helps to control both ends of your link (rather than two seperate connections to an ISP) Kind Regards Crispin Wellington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
eql = tun + eth0
Hi, Would it be possible to bind /dev/tunl0 and /dev/eth0 under eql? I mean, I'd like to have more bandwidth out from both devices. The packets will traverse two different default routes, I guess. TIA, Oki
EQL with Broadband
Is it possible to do EQL with broadband? Brandt Dusthimer
Re: eql
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, steve j . kondik wrote: > i've been trying to get eql working on a potato box without much luck. > the two ppp links come up fine (and i've set nodefaultroute in the options), > i do and ifconfig eql up ip, eql_enslave eql pppx 57600 for each of the > links, then route add default eql, and it refuses to route. the isp > is set up correctly to handle the connection, and it is a static ip. if > anyone has any experience with this, or could point me to some better > documentation, i'd appreciate it. Some rough notes at http://mentor.cbcfreo.wa.edu.au/~allen/eqlnotes/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 2486 32.0125S 115.8445E Debian Linux =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
eql
i've been trying to get eql working on a potato box without much luck. the two ppp links come up fine (and i've set nodefaultroute in the options), i do and ifconfig eql up ip, eql_enslave eql pppx 57600 for each of the links, then route add default eql, and it refuses to route. the isp is set up correctly to handle the connection, and it is a static ip. if anyone has any experience with this, or could point me to some better documentation, i'd appreciate it. thanks! -steve
EQL problems - Update
Chewie here, with a quick update on the EQL problems I was having. In case you hadn't seen the previous post, here's a quick synopsis. I had compiled the 2.2.5 kernel with eql support, initiated my two modem connections with no (absolutely NO) compression, and enslaved the devices to the eql device. My routing table was set up correctly, and I watched the tcpdump on each device to find that data was being sent and received, but just not finalized. The initiating program didn't receive packets...they seemed to disappear somewhere between the modem device and the eql device. Well, since I had done everything right, as according to documentation and the advice of a friend, we decided to go back to the 2.0.36 kernel. Lo-and-behold, it worked! After establishing a stable eql environment, I applied the firewall and masquerading rules to make the connection LAN accessible. Mission accomplished. The short and long of it, eql on kernels newer than 2.0.36 should be assumed to be broken until further notice. I will be reporting the bug to the tracker sometime tomorrow morning. Chewie AKA: Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux user since 2.0.32
EQL problems
Objective: Use eql tools to utilize bandwidth of two modems for connectivity and provide masquerading for local LAN Progress: Just trying to get eql to work w/out masquerading or firewall options enabled...(Default policy = ACCEPT) Materials Read: RTFM on NET-3-HOWTO.gz, IP-Masquerading.gz, ../linux/Documentation/eql.txt, various posts, IP-Chains-HOWTO.gz (Jan '99). Details: * Successful connection to provider w/both modems * Successful eql_enslave of both modems to eql device * Routing tables configured as described in documentation (route add default dev eql) * Standard ping to immediate upstream works... Problem: * Will not combine packet buffers from separate modems into one virtual device (eql) Notes: I performed a standard ping to a known IP address in Internet space. The tcpdump of the eql device revealed each packet being received and transmitted to the modem devices -- ppp0 and ppp1. The tcpdump ppp1 revealed EVERY ICMP ECHO_REQUEST being transfered over this device, no ECHO_REPLY. The tcpdump of ppp0 was opposite...all replies, no requests. The ping did not resolve. I can only assume that the eql device is not re-combining the enslaved devices return communication into one buffer and passing it on to the calling program... Likewise, a telnet session was attempted in the same manner...no go. Any takers? Chewie
Re: EQL question
*- On 10 Mar, Craig T. Hancock wrote about "Re: EQL question" > I ma just curious what is EQL > EQL Driver: Serial IP Load Balancing HOWTO Simon "Guru Aleph-Null" Janes, [EMAIL PROTECTED] v1.1, February 27, 1995 This is the manual for the EQL device driver. EQL is a software device that lets you load-balance IP serial links (SLIP or uncompressed PPP) to increase your bandwidth. It will not reduce your latency (i.e. ping times) except in the case where you already have lots of traffic on your link, in which it will help them out. -- Brian - "Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes, because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes." - unknown Mechanical Engineering[EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -
Re: EQL question
I ma just curious what is EQL "Froilan C. Mendoza" wrote: > Hello! > > Would like to ask if it's possible to have two or more EQL connections to > a server? .. we have one existing EQL connection to our server (using two > modems) and we are intending to put up a couple of connections using EQL. > > Thanks in advanced. > > Sincerely, > > Froilan C. Mendoza > Systems Administrator > Network Tracking and Implementation > Tridel Technologies, Inc. > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
EQL question
Hello! Would like to ask if it's possible to have two or more EQL connections to a server? .. we have one existing EQL connection to our server (using two modems) and we are intending to put up a couple of connections using EQL. Thanks in advanced. Sincerely, Froilan C. Mendoza Systems Administrator Network Tracking and Implementation Tridel Technologies, Inc.
EQL PPP Load balancing
Has anyone used EQL with USR Total Control Terminal Server. I can connect twice to the term server and get the same IP and such but i have alot of problems with route anyone have any docs besides the NET-3-How-TO? Dinesh
Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > My testing has been with 2.0.34 on both ends. Have you tried it on > that version Lindsay? Yes, fine on .34. > On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 10:26:48PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > > ALso, maybe I am misunderstanding you but I thought that eql was only > > designed for serial devices. Also note that both network interfaces need > > the same IP address. In other words, if you have two dialup connections, > > they both need to be the SAME IP Address for EQL to work. > > Hmmm. I got the impression that it should work on any link. They use > plip as an example in the doco, I think. I did try it with the same IP > on both links (a bit weird on ethernet but anyway) and didn't seem to > get anywhere further. I'll try again soon and check out the kernel list. Hmm, I think they talk about slip rather than plip. I would not have dreampt of trying it with ethernet, but why not? From: Marsh Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The thing with eql is you need a linux box on both ends of the > connections. Our company put a linux box out at our ISP's site > so we can use eql. They're a small ISP and easy to work with. Not correct. Livingston Portmasters support eql. My problem is that my ISP has four PMs and as I dial in through a rotary it is pot luck as to which box I get. eql requires that all lines be to the same box and that's where it gets difficult and expensive. I now have FreeBSD 2.2.6 here and will try that. I followed up the altavista idea and found Michael Bruck's web page http://mp.ins-coin.de/ but he has dropped the project due to lack of time. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Linux =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
From: Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 10:26:48PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: >> they both need to be the SAME IP Address for EQL to work. > >Hmmm. I got the impression that it should work on any link. They use >plip as an example in the doco, I think. I did try it with the same IP >on both links (a bit weird on ethernet but anyway) and didn't seem to >get anywhere further. I'll try again soon and check out the kernel list. The thing with eql is you need a linux box on both ends of the connections. Our company put a linux box out at our ISP's site so we can use eql. They're a small ISP and easy to work with. Other ISPs might support "multilink PPP" but probably not eql. - Marsh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
My testing has been with 2.0.34 on both ends. Have you tried it on that version Lindsay? On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 10:26:48PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > ALso, maybe I am misunderstanding you but I thought that eql was only > designed for serial devices. Also note that both network interfaces need > the same IP address. In other words, if you have two dialup connections, > they both need to be the SAME IP Address for EQL to work. Hmmm. I got the impression that it should work on any link. They use plip as an example in the doco, I think. I did try it with the same IP on both links (a bit weird on ethernet but anyway) and didn't seem to get anywhere further. I'll try again soon and check out the kernel list. thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
On Fri, Jun 26, 1998 at 08:19:55AM +0800, Lindsay Allen wrote: > Using here quite successfully. But check with your provider that he has > only one box as both modems must be connected to the same box. If he has > multiple boxes you might have to make a lot of calls to achieve this. > > What we need is multi-link ppp. Available (so I'm told) for FreeBSD and > W95 but not for Linux. > > There is an eql package. Contact me by email if you need help. I couldn't find the package but I compiled the source off sunsite ok (I think, some source hacks required) on a bo system. I'm trying to play around with parallel ethernet. One of the networks is my regular ethernet, the other is another I've added between two machines. I've configured the addresses and the second ethernet is working fine. I eql_enslaved the devices on each end and added a route to the eql device, but can't ping and there's no sign of any traffic being sent. /proc/net/dev lists lots of packets being dropped on the eql device, nothing sent or received. Any ideas? thanks, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
On Fri, Jun 26, 1998 at 08:19:55AM +0800, Lindsay Allen wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Debian Mailing List wrote: > > > > > hi there i am a newbie and was wondering if anyone has or know how to use > > two modems or more to dial up to a isp and bond all the lines together.. > > > > my isp currently uses ascend dial-up servers and supports 56k modems > > > > --kim > > Using here quite successfully. But check with your provider that he has > only one box as both modems must be connected to the same box. If he has > multiple boxes you might have to make a lot of calls to achieve this. > > What we need is multi-link ppp. Available (so I'm told) for FreeBSD and > W95 but not for Linux. Hmm, no... There is support for the (semi?) standard multilink ppp protocol under development... It is not in the standard kernel yet, and I don't remember the www site, but an altavista search for "ppp multilink protocol" +linux should get it for you. -- __ | ian eure, network admin, freelance security consultant, and | | manically depressed paranoid schizophrenic, at your service. | ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://minion.org ; : raw speed = 105.6 wpm with 4.5% errors : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Debian Mailing List wrote: > > hi there i am a newbie and was wondering if anyone has or know how to use > two modems or more to dial up to a isp and bond all the lines together.. > > my isp currently uses ascend dial-up servers and supports 56k modems > > --kim Using here quite successfully. But check with your provider that he has only one box as both modems must be connected to the same box. If he has multiple boxes you might have to make a lot of calls to achieve this. What we need is multi-link ppp. Available (so I'm told) for FreeBSD and W95 but not for Linux. There is an eql package. Contact me by email if you need help. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Linux =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ppp analog bonding w/ eql
hi there i am a newbie and was wondering if anyone has or know how to use two modems or more to dial up to a isp and bond all the lines together.. my isp currently uses ascend dial-up servers and supports 56k modems --kim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
do I need EQL for a multi-modem connection?
Greetings, I want to set up a small network using IP Masquarade over 2-4 phone lines, do I NEED eql, or can I set this up as two seperate PPP connections and just let the machine route them independantly? Does this cause any problems, or does it simply cause a less optimal use of the lines? thank you for your time. -Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
>Now, if I go to dual modems (or even three), is the box going to be >able >to keep up when servicing three 33K modems and doing DNS lookups and >running apache, squid, etc all at the same time? Oh yeah, it will certianly keep up. A local ISP used to run their whole ISP on a 486dx4/100, with 32mb, using about 11 lines, running squid, apache, mail etc server all of it, with the load seldom even reaching .5. The point is, that doing these kind of things use almost no CPU > >Lindsay >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia >voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Unix >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Cheers Neilen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
Hi Kevin, I worked it out yesterday. My mistake was in not deleting the pppx entries from the routing table. Perfectly obvious in hindsight, but I do wish that people writing documents would give more examples. The closest I have come to a Portmaster is looking one up in the price list on Saturday. Guess I will stick with Linux. I guess they have to be configured and that your IPS has not done it correctly. Maybe the list will come good. I do need some expert advice in one area. The school Linux box (P133) does everything at the moment and has a single modem link to the outside. Now, if I go to dual modems (or even three), is the box going to be able to keep up when servicing three 33K modems and doing DNS lookups and running apache, squid, etc all at the same time? It would clearly be better to have smart card to service the modems but they seems to be around $A900. Another possibility is to use a spare 486/33 to handle the modems but, as we have only one IP address, that box would have to have it and the Linux box would then be masqueraded behind it (or use redir.) It starts to seem really messy. Getting back to eql, I thought of writing up a mini HOWTO on the subject, but then I have zero experience with Livinston boxes or of using it with SLiRP. I would also like to hear of any experience with the situation mentioned in the docs where he suggests a cron entry that runs every minute of every hour to keep the thing up. Lindsay =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Unix =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Kevin Traas wrote: > >> > I have a fairly urgent need for load balancing two modems, but eql just > >> > does not work for me. All the bits are in place but all traffic goes > via > >> > ppp1. > >> > > >> You must make sure that the hardware at the other end of the connection > >> will also support load balancing (i.e. it must be a linux box, a > >> Livingston port master with both connections on sequential ports, or > shell > >> accounts running SLiRP). > > > Hello Lindsay. Just wanted to say that I've just begun "playing" with EQL > as well. I've been meaning to do this for the past year or so, but never > got around to it... Anyway, after a few hours, I do have everything working > and everything is great - except for one thing. > > While my end will send data out both ports just fine, I only get data back > from my ISP on one of the ports (or the other). It seems that I'll get data > on one port (the first I brought up) for a random time and then it will > switch over to the other / another port and data will come in from there for > a while until it makes another change > > My ISP has a Livingston PM3 (which is supposed to work with EQL), and it > *does* seem to work - except for that one (and, unfortunately, very > important) thing above. > > With two modems, I get about 5KB/s via outgoing FTP, but I only get about > 3KB/s via incoming FTP. (Even with this problem, I get better performance > than with just one modem because all packet ACK's will go out the "unused" > port which allows the FTP data stream to continue uninterupted.) > > Anyway, if you (or anyone) can help me out, or if I can help you out > further, please let me know. I'd be happy to share more details if > requested. > > Later, > Kevin > > > > > > -- > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
>> > I have a fairly urgent need for load balancing two modems, but eql just >> > does not work for me. All the bits are in place but all traffic goes via >> > ppp1. >> > >> You must make sure that the hardware at the other end of the connection >> will also support load balancing (i.e. it must be a linux box, a >> Livingston port master with both connections on sequential ports, or shell >> accounts running SLiRP). Hello Lindsay. Just wanted to say that I've just begun "playing" with EQL as well. I've been meaning to do this for the past year or so, but never got around to it... Anyway, after a few hours, I do have everything working and everything is great - except for one thing. While my end will send data out both ports just fine, I only get data back from my ISP on one of the ports (or the other). It seems that I'll get data on one port (the first I brought up) for a random time and then it will switch over to the other / another port and data will come in from there for a while until it makes another change My ISP has a Livingston PM3 (which is supposed to work with EQL), and it *does* seem to work - except for that one (and, unfortunately, very important) thing above. With two modems, I get about 5KB/s via outgoing FTP, but I only get about 3KB/s via incoming FTP. (Even with this problem, I get better performance than with just one modem because all packet ACK's will go out the "unused" port which allows the FTP data stream to continue uninterupted.) Anyway, if you (or anyone) can help me out, or if I can help you out further, please let me know. I'd be happy to share more details if requested. Later, Kevin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, George Bonser wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Lindsay Allen wrote: > > > > > I have a fairly urgent need for load balancing two modems, but eql just > > does not work for me. All the bits are in place but all traffic goes via > > ppp1. > > > > There are quite a few steps in setting things up and I am wondering if > > these things have to be done in a specific order. > > > > How do I go about debugging this? > > > > You must make sure that the hardware at the other end of the connection > will also support load balancing (i.e. it must be a linux box, a > Livingston port master with both connections on sequential ports, or shell > accounts running SLiRP). > > > George Bonser > Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? > http://www.debian.org > Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system. Thanks, George. I was not aware of the Livingston and SLiRP details. At the moment I am just practising, using two Debian boxes in my shack with a modem ppp0 connection and a null modem ppp1 (or vice versa.) I have run out of ideas. Cheers, Lindsay =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Unix =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
> > Is there a HOWTO or similar? I have /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/README.eql > > and I got hold of eql-1.2.tar.gz which has the source for eql_enslave. > > It's in the NET-3 Howto. > > 6.6. EQL - multiple line traffic equaliser Thanks - I missed that. But I don't think the writer has actually tried it. He says "eql_emancipate eql sl0" but eql_emancipate has not been written yet. I hope to hear from someone who _has_ tried it. > > The application is for a school which needs 64K bandwidth but ISDN is too > > expensive at ~S7000/year in this part of the world. Any help will be much > > appreciated. > > Horrendous, isn't it? Long live Telstra eh? :) I hope they choke. > D. > Lindsay =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Unix =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
> Is there a HOWTO or similar? I have /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/README.eql > and I got hold of eql-1.2.tar.gz which has the source for eql_enslave. It's in the NET-3 Howto. 6.6. EQL - multiple line traffic equaliser > The application is for a school which needs 64K bandwidth but ISDN is too > expensive at ~S7000/year in this part of the world. Any help will be much > appreciated. Horrendous, isn't it? Long live Telstra eh? :) D. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
EQL - all traffic is via ppp1
I have a fairly urgent need for load balancing two modems, but eql just does not work for me. All the bits are in place but all traffic goes via ppp1. There are quite a few steps in setting things up and I am wondering if these things have to be done in a specific order. How do I go about debugging this? Is there a HOWTO or similar? I have /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/README.eql and I got hold of eql-1.2.tar.gz which has the source for eql_enslave. The application is for a school which needs 64K bandwidth but ISDN is too expensive at ~S7000/year in this part of the world. Any help will be much appreciated. Lindsay =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Unix =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Help with EQL
> Could anyone point me towards documentation or help me with setting up EQL? > > I have installed the module in kernel 2.0.30 without problems but do not > know where to go from there? There is some documentation in /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/README.eql that you might have missed. (from the Linux kernel source) I've never used EQL myself. Cheers, - Jim pgp1jeiZJZLHR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Help with EQL
Hi All, Could anyone point me towards documentation or help me with setting up EQL? I have installed the module in kernel 2.0.30 without problems but do not know where to go from there? thanks Rowan - Rowan Deppeler System Administrator Cybernex Networking http://www.cybernex.net.au VK3VW,VK3RCR -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Again - Multilink PPP vs. EQL
> >To: "Steve Hsieh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: > > > > After burrowing around some, I finally found some info and docs on > EQL; > > > > however, Multilink PPP is mentioned as a newer, and improved > alternative. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't find any info on Multilink PPP in the HowTo's, > > > etc. > > > > I thought mutlilink PPP was something only available for ISDN? If i'm > > incorrect, someone correct me. I have been looking at multilink ppp right now. (Trying to understand it really.) There is an RFC on it that gives a broad description of it and directly states that it is not intended to be used on only one link service. From the way it reads it should be able to handle one dial up analog modem and one ISDN (or more) at the same time. My ISP has currently been moving to a new location and has been supporting a Fractional T1 frame relay line to handle one of his old modem banks. A few days ago the router on the CSU/DSU died and the T1 bill came in at the same time. For the heck of it he set up several modems on the modem server for multilink ppp and had one call the new office. If several people call into the old modem bank one of the other modems dials up and starts sharing the load. He let old Bell kill the T1 line and now only uses the dialup. The response isn't too fast but it's miles cheaper than T1. Once the modems are running together the second doesn't drop our right away so it works ok. This message will actually go over that link. If you would like to know what the RFC is I can find out, it's at work and I am extremely interested in it. The modem server brand escapes me right now but I can find that out too. > > Nope, you're correct. It was something new to me to, but after some > well-received "guidance", I've got things straightened out > > > By the way, Kevin -- what docs have you found on eql? Do you know if one > > has to use eql_enslave to enslave links, and if so, is the latest > > eql_enslave the one stored inside one of old eql patches on > > sunsite.unc.edu? > > About all I've found on EQL was in the NET3-Howto. I haven't tried any of > this yet (soon, though), but from the docs it looks as if all you need is > to run "ifconfig eql up/down" to establish the driver/interface. (Of > course, you need kernel support for EQL as well.) Once that's done, there > are additional steps required to establish connections to the remote > system, but I can't remember those steps and I don't have access to the > Howto right now. > > Also, I'm sure there are others _much_ more knowledgeable about EQL than I > am - I'm a true newbie in this area. > > Thanks for the help, > > Kevin Traas > Systems Analyst > Edmondson Roper CA > http://www.eroper.bc.ca > > > > > > -- > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: EQL
Steve Hsieh writes: > > >Who has EQL running on their system? To those that do -- do you still >have to run eql_enslave as written in the eql readme file in the kernel? >The info and web sites listed there are out of date. > The short answer: yes Brian -- Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://widget.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
EQL
Who has EQL running on their system? To those that do -- do you still have to run eql_enslave as written in the eql readme file in the kernel? The info and web sites listed there are out of date. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Again - Multilink PPP vs. EQL
> > > After burrowing around some, I finally found some info and docs on EQL; > > > however, Multilink PPP is mentioned as a newer, and improved alternative. > > > > > Unfortunately, I can't find any info on Multilink PPP in the HowTo's, > > etc. > > I thought mutlilink PPP was something only available for ISDN? If i'm > incorrect, someone correct me. Nope, you're correct. It was something new to me to, but after some well-received "guidance", I've got things straightened out > By the way, Kevin -- what docs have you found on eql? Do you know if one > has to use eql_enslave to enslave links, and if so, is the latest > eql_enslave the one stored inside one of old eql patches on > sunsite.unc.edu? About all I've found on EQL was in the NET3-Howto. I haven't tried any of this yet (soon, though), but from the docs it looks as if all you need is to run "ifconfig eql up/down" to establish the driver/interface. (Of course, you need kernel support for EQL as well.) Once that's done, there are additional steps required to establish connections to the remote system, but I can't remember those steps and I don't have access to the Howto right now. Also, I'm sure there are others _much_ more knowledgeable about EQL than I am - I'm a true newbie in this area. Thanks for the help, Kevin Traas Systems Analyst Edmondson Roper CA http://www.eroper.bc.ca -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Again - Multilink PPP vs. EQL
> > After burrowing around some, I finally found some info and docs on EQL; > > however, Multilink PPP is mentioned as a newer, and improved alternative. > > > Unfortunately, I can't find any info on Multilink PPP in the HowTo's, > etc. > > > > Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or, is it not yet available > on > > the Linux platform? I thought mutlilink PPP was something only available for ISDN? If i'm incorrect, someone correct me. By the way, Kevin -- what docs have you found on eql? Do you know if one has to use eql_enslave to enslave links, and if so, is the latest eql_enslave the one stored inside one of old eql patches on sunsite.unc.edu? -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Again - Multilink PPP vs. EQL
I've no responses so far, so thought I'd repost. Please let me know if you've got any info for me. Thx. Kevin > After burrowing around some, I finally found some info and docs on EQL; > however, Multilink PPP is mentioned as a newer, and improved alternative. > Unfortunately, I can't find any info on Multilink PPP in the HowTo's, etc. > > Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or, is it not yet available on > the Linux platform? > > TIA, > > Kevin Traas > Systems Analyst > Edmondson Roper CA > http://www.eroper.bc.ca -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Multilink PPP vs. EQL
After burrowing around some, I finally found some info and docs on EQL; however, Multilink PPP is mentioned as a newer, and improved alternative. However, I can't find any info on Multilink PPP in any of the HowTo's, etc. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or, is it not yet available on the Linux platform? TIA, Kevin Traas Systems Analyst Edmondson Roper CA http://www.eroper.bc.ca -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
