Barney Cordoba wrote:
--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Felix J. Ogris wrote:
From: Felix J. Ogris
Subject: Re: CARP IP level load balancing
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:24 AM
On 1/20/09 3:30 PM, "Alexey Ivanov"
wrote:
Is there any plans to port IP lev
2009/3/13 Barney Cordoba :
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/8/09, Felix J. Ogris wrote:
>
>> From: Felix J. Ogris
>> Subject: Re: CARP IP level load balancing
>> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
>> Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:24 AM
>> On 1/20/09 3:30 PM,
--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Felix J. Ogris wrote:
> From: Felix J. Ogris
> Subject: Re: CARP IP level load balancing
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:24 AM
> On 1/20/09 3:30 PM, "Alexey Ivanov"
> wrote:
>
> > Is there any plans to
On 1/20/09 3:30 PM, "Alexey Ivanov" wrote:
> Is there any plans to port IP level LB from OpenBSD, and, if yes, will it be
> ported to 7x and 6x?
Feel free to port http://ogris.de/carp/carp_aa.patch to 7.x.
Felix
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing l
Luiz Otavio O Souza wrote:
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 9:30 AM
In FreeBSD there is only ARP level LB, that is in some cases
just not enough for load balancing.
Is there any plans to port IP level LB from OpenBSD, and,
if yes, will it be ported to 7x and 6x?
In my opinion, full CARP
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 9:30 AM
In FreeBSD there is only ARP level LB, that is in some cases
just not enough for load balancing.
Is there any plans to port IP level LB from OpenBSD, and,
if yes, will it be ported to 7x and 6x?
In my opinion, full CARP realization is one step towards
LVS
--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
> From: Alexey Ivanov
> Subject: CARP IP level load balancing
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 9:30 AM
> In FreeBSD there is only ARP level LB, that is in some cases
> just not enough for load balanci
In FreeBSD there is only ARP level LB, that is in some cases just not enough
for load balancing.
Is there any plans to port IP level LB from OpenBSD, and, if yes, will it be
ported to 7x and 6x?
In my opinion, full CARP realization is one step towards LVS-equal
functionality
been attempting to research what I have been informed is
actually accomplished with layer-4 load balancing. I have seen many
articles and reviews that indicate that lagg(4) will accomplish the
teaming of multiple internet access sorces into a single logical pipe,
however, I have tried this using a
Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:32:03AM -0400, Martes G Wigglesworth wrote:
> > Greetings all.
> >
> > I have been attempting to research what I have been informed is
> > actually accomplished with layer-4 load balancing. I have seen many
> > articl
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:32:03AM -0400, Martes G Wigglesworth wrote:
> Greetings all.
>
> I have been attempting to research what I have been informed is
> actually accomplished with layer-4 load balancing. I have seen many
> articles and reviews that indicate that lagg(4) will
Greetings all.
I have been attempting to research what I have been informed is
actually accomplished with layer-4 load balancing. I have seen many
articles and reviews that indicate that lagg(4) will accomplish the
teaming of multiple internet access sorces into a single logical pipe,
however
Hello,
I followed the instructions in carp(4) and set up a load balancing and
failover configuration on vlan interfaces -- it's working fine (as long
as I don't `ifconfig carp25 destroy'...).
In order to really make use of this functionality, I need a user land
method of figurin
I took a few minutes to make a port of it after Roman Divacky sent me an
initial patchset for it. I made sure that it compiled/installed fine but
don't have the chance to test it now.
For those who don't know yet about hoststated:
hoststated is the host status daemon for server load
"The master of the address sends out CARP advertisement messages via
multicast using the CARP protocol (IP Protocol 112) on a regular basis,
and the backup hosts listen for this advertisement. If the
advertisements stop, the backup hosts will begin advertising."
I'm afraid CARP will not be ro
You can also take a look on LVS/IPVS...
http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/LVS/TUN_mode_with_FreeBSD_and_Solaris_realserver
The software is also available for FreeBSD and works on WAN
architectures. I didn't test it yet but used sucessfully on Lin boxes.
Hope this helps...
Philippe LAQUET
Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 18:52, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
Have a look at: http://www.countersiege.com/doc/pfsync-carp/#big for
one idea. All requirements (carp, pf and pfsync) are available in
FreeBSD as well.
You can load balance with CARP, but A
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 18:52, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
> > Have a look at: http://www.countersiege.com/doc/pfsync-carp/#big for
> > one idea. All requirements (carp, pf and pfsync) are available in
> > FreeBSD as well.
>
> You can load balance with CARP, but AFAIK it only works
Max Laier wrote:
Have a look at: http://www.countersiege.com/doc/pfsync-carp/#big for one
idea. All requirements (carp, pf and pfsync) are available in FreeBSD as
well.
You can load balance with CARP, but AFAIK it only works on the local
network segment, i.e. it wont work past a router.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:22:54PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
M> > > I'd like to set up a load balancing and resiliance system to
M> > > load balance between a bunch of web servers running Apache tomcat
M> > > (slow java stuff). Ideally I'd like each client IP to
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 15:26, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Baldur Gislason (baldur) writes:
> > I'd like to set up a load balancing and resiliance system to
> > load balance between a bunch of web servers running Apache tomcat
> > (slow java stuff). Ideally I'd like
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Baldur Gislason (baldur) writes:
>> I'd like to set up a load balancing and resiliance system to
>> load balance between a bunch of web servers running Apache tomcat (slow java
>> stuff).
>> Ideally I'd like each client IP to get mapped
Baldur Gislason (baldur) writes:
> I'd like to set up a load balancing and resiliance system to
> load balance between a bunch of web servers running Apache tomcat (slow java
> stuff).
> Ideally I'd like each client IP to get mapped to a certain server and keep
> that
I'd like to set up a load balancing and resiliance system to
load balance between a bunch of web servers running Apache tomcat (slow java
stuff).
Ideally I'd like each client IP to get mapped to a certain server and keep that
mapping throughout the entire session. I'd also like to
Michael Jeung wrote:
We currently use DNS round-robin to balance traffic to servers. We've
recently run into situations where multiple search engine spiders are
crawling our webservers. They appear to be targeting specific
webservers by IP address. This defeats DNS round-robin and as a
resu
g tools since it now looks
> like all the traffic is coming from a single IP address.
>
> I'm sure this is a common problem. Does anyone have a good solution
> to this? Essentially, I want all the benefits of load-balancing with
> none o
od solution
to this? Essentially, I want all the benefits of load-balancing with
none of the single-IP-traffic drawbacks. =)
Regards,
Michael Jeung
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To un
Hello,
Jon Simola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may want to check out PF, the packet filter imported from OpenBSD.
> I have it running on some large routers doing NAT out multiple
> interfaces, load balancing and policy routing. Careful use of anchors
> and some scripting
passed through it.
>
> Using it in a combination with policy-routing would be a powerful
> mechanism!
You may want to check out PF, the packet filter imported from OpenBSD.
I have it running on some large routers doing NAT out multiple
interfaces, load balancing and policy routing. Care
rt natd daemon.
The task:
We have several interfaces connected to internet and all having static
IPs and one (or more) interfaces to local network.
We must provide NATed internet access to local network users
load-balancing internet interfaces and providing failover. All session
have to "
all having static
IPs and one (or more) interfaces to local network.
We must provide NATed internet access to local network users
load-balancing internet interfaces and providing failover. All session
have to "remember" their outgoing interface as one session will break
if packets start to
Client Load Balancing: LSNAT-router using IPFW and NATD on FreeBSD 6.0
The Internet gateways must reside in different logical networks for this
configuration to work.
1. Compile Custom Kernel
options IPFIREWALL
options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD
options IPDIVERT
options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD_EXTENDED
2
user of NAT or IP valid ?
If it is possible, wanted to see examples with rules.
It would be much better to do per flow load balancing then per packet.
With per packet your TCP flows will arrive out of order which is a bad
situation since it will lead to a large number of retransmissions and
es to problems with the navigation of the
>> > user of NAT or IP valid ?
>> > If it is possible, wanted to see examples with rules.
>> >
>
> It would be much better to do per flow load balancing then per packet.
> With per packet your TCP flows will arrive out of o
... I need
load balancing outgoing traffic from:
192.168.0.0/24 ( NAT )
and 64.XX.XX.0/24, 65.XX.XX.0/24
It is possible to make this balancing with the PF ? Exists some
software that I make this ? Zebra can help me?
This type of balancing gives to problems with the navigation of the
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 14:03 -0200, Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote:
> It would be very good if could make this.
>
> Which the solution?
Linux supports this feature if you build advanced routing options into
the kernel.
The only FreeBSD code I've seen to do something like this is at:
http://www.dsm.f
user of NAT or IP valid ?
If it is possible, wanted to see examples with rules.
It would be much better to do per flow load balancing then per packet.
With per packet your TCP flows will arrive out of order which is a bad
situation since it will lead to a large number of retransmissions and
gation of the
> > user of NAT or IP valid ?
> > If it is possible, wanted to see examples with rules.
> >
It would be much better to do per flow load balancing then per packet.
With per packet your TCP flows will arrive out of order which is a bad
situation since it will lead to a
/ \
/ \
IP: 192.168.0.10/24 IP: 64.XX.XX.6/30
GW: 192.168.0.254GW: 64.XX.XX.5
and more clients ...
I need load balancing outgoing
Dnia Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 08:33:34AM -0200, Daniel Dias Gonçalves napisał(a):
>
> It is possible to make this balancing with the PF ? Exists some software
> that I make this ? Zebra can help me?
> This type of balancing gives to problems with the navigation of the user
> of NAT or IP valid ?
> I
/ \
/ \
IP: 192.168.0.10/24 IP: 64.XX.XX.6/30
GW: 192.168.0.254GW: 64.XX.XX.5
and more clients ...
I need load balancing outgoing traffic from:
192.168.0.0/24 ( NAT )
and 64
> -Original Message-
> Totally true and problem get worse when you already have the equipament
> and have to implement a solution over it.
> We are also using a script at this moment but it doesn't do load
> balance. What it only do is to check if the current provide
> are okay, and if not,
o out and buy one of those
home dsl/cable modems that have 2 ports and provide load balancing
instead.
[Mitch says:]
The only ones I've seen were rather expensive and aren't modem's - they are
routers... so you have to still have your ADSL modem, your cable modem, your
load bal
>
> Why dont you all do yourselves a favor and go out and buy one of those
> home dsl/cable modems that have 2 ports and provide load balancing
> instead.
>
[Mitch says:]
The only ones I've seen were rather expensive and aren't modem's - they are
routers... so yo
statements, you can make both links function at the same
> time, using pf, you can supposedly do some sort of load sharing, but I
> havne't used pf yet.
>
Why dont you all do yourselves a favor and go out and buy one of those
home dsl/cable modems th
> NiY wrote:
>
> >Greetings! I have yet to find a definitive answer on this subject, so
> >I was hoping someone would let me know the official way to go about
> >this, or if it's even possible.
> >
> >We have two ADSL services coming into out building. We would like to
> >use them both on one netw
NiY wrote:
Greetings! I have yet to find a definitive answer on this subject, so
I was hoping someone would let me know the official way to go about
this, or if it's even possible.
We have two ADSL services coming into out building. We would like to
use them both on one network, using a multi-home
NiY wrote:
Greetings! I have yet to find a definitive answer on this subject, so
I was hoping someone would let me know the official way to go about
this, or if it's even possible.
We have two ADSL services coming into out building. We would like to
use them both on one network, using a multi-homed
Greetings! I have yet to find a definitive answer on this subject, so
I was hoping someone would let me know the official way to go about
this, or if it's even possible.
We have two ADSL services coming into out building. We would like to
use them both on one network, using a multi-homed FreeBSD b
Dear List
I have one simple question regarding pf.
Does pf load balancing outgoing internet conenction from LAN rules can
work together with pf redirection rules are used to forward incoming
connections from the Internet to a local server with a private address ?
Please enlight me
regards
Reza
ehind the ears but would like
to jump right in. The ng_onetomany seems like a good fit but I would need 2
connections from the same ISP since they both have different gateways?
At any rate, if some others could share their experiences with Load Balancing from
alternate ISP's(outgoing only
Hi All,
Are there any plans to get load balancing our multipath routing in the BSD
kernel similar to what iproute2 supports in linux?
Thanks,
- Mike
Michael F. DeMan
Director of Technology
OpenAccess Internet Services
1305 11th St., 3rd Floor
Bellingham, WA 98225
Tel 360-647-0785 x204
Fax 360
In a Sysadmin (Jan 2002) article, there is explained how to use Linux as a
"router" using redundant network connections (DSL + dialup), as well as
load balancing between the two. I recall this required some special kernel
configuration directives:
CONFIG_IP_ADVANCE
Matt wrote:
> You may try some other kind of load balance and fail safe from
> www.xgforce.com. It's a layer 3 and layer 7 global clustering software for
> FreeBSD.
Wrong kind of "load balancing". The original poster wanted
channel bonding, not server load balanc
PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: load balancing with 2 nic cards possible?
> I have tried that fec driver, no luck. I get the interface up, but when I
try
> to transmit packets over it I get "invalid
I had grouped the
> ports, and I've tried two types of network cards, 3com 905C and Intel
> EtherExpress 100
>
> Baldur Gislason
>
> On Saturday 27 April 2002 06:07, you wrote:
> > Gary Stanley wrote:
> > > Is it possible to split the load of IP traffic with
, 3com 905C and Intel
EtherExpress 100
Baldur Gislason
On Saturday 27 April 2002 06:07, you wrote:
> Gary Stanley wrote:
> > Is it possible to split the load of IP traffic with 2 ethernet cards on a
> > 4.x machine? I'm new to "load balancing" in a sense, however,
At 02:48 19-2-2002 -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Zviratko wrote:
>
> >
>[SNIP]
> >
> > I will try that, but I guess default route has precedence over ipfw.
>
> Not in the case of ipfw fwd. The routing decision seems to be
> made before ipfw fwd changes the packe
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:44:05PM -0800, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > The only real "cisco only" protocol is the PAgP (Port Aggregation
> > Protocol) which is essentially just a FEC auto-negiotation protocol they
> > made up. AFAIK noone other then Cisco actually implements this though.
>
> Don'
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Zviratko wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
> I will try that, but I guess default route has precedence over ipfw.
Not in the case of ipfw fwd. The routing decision seems to be
made before ipfw fwd changes the packet.
Nick Rogness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Don't mind me...I
>> The only real "cisco only" protocol is the PAgP (Port Aggregation
>> Protocol) which is essentially just a FEC auto-negiotation protocol they
>> made up. AFAIK noone other then Cisco actually implements this though.
> Don't forget to add EIGRP and CDP to the list. -sc
actually, the one with
> The only real "cisco only" protocol is the PAgP (Port Aggregation
> Protocol) which is essentially just a FEC auto-negiotation protocol they
> made up. AFAIK noone other then Cisco actually implements this though.
Don't forget to add EIGRP and CDP to the list. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
To Un
> > ng_fec needs a cisco at the other end (or possibly another freebsd
> > machine with ng_fec but I don't know that).
Fast EtherChannel doesn't actually require a Cisco device on the other
side, it is really just a "non-standardized standard" for the hashing
that decides which physical interfa
I just got it to work by using ng_one2many:
ifconfig ed1 up lladdr 00:88:e8:83:63:c0
ifconfig ed2 up lladdr 00:88:e8:83:63:c0
kldload /modules/ng_ether.ko
ngctl mkpeer ed1: one2many upper one
ngctl connect ed1: ed1:upper lower many0
ngctl connect ed2: ed1:upper lower many1
ngctl msg ed2: setpromi
>
> > Hi,
> > is there a preferred way to do ethernet load balancing? My situation
is - 2
> > cable modems connected to two ethernet cards on with a machine
functioning
> > as a NAT gateway for LAN. I tried netgraph (ng_ether with round robin
and
> > ng_fec).
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Zviratko wrote:
> Hi,
> is there a preferred way to do ethernet load balancing? My situation is - 2
> cable modems connected to two ethernet cards on with a machine functioning
> as a NAT gateway for LAN. I tried netgraph (ng_ether with round robin and
>
Hi,
is there a preferred way to do ethernet load balancing? My situation is - 2
cable modems connected to two ethernet cards on with a machine functioning
as a NAT gateway for LAN. I tried netgraph (ng_ether with round robin and
ng_fec). With ng_ether, I achieved packets being sent via one
Len Conrad writes:
> Is anybody using netgraph and multilink ppp (recommended by PHK) to
> load-balance outgoing traffic over multiple (4 or more) T1's? stable?
> efficient enough to push the T1's towards practial limits?
Should work no problem.
If you have FreeBSD on both ends, you might als
Is anybody using netgraph and multilink ppp (recommended by PHK) to
load-balance outgoing traffic over multiple (4 or more) T1's? stable?
efficient enough to push the T1's towards practial limits?
thanks
Len
http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training
http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for N
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> Our redundancy is at the point where we have more of a problem detecting
> that links are actually down and notifying the admin! Once we went for 6
> hours with a feed down because the What's Up box was pinging the wrong IP
> number, and no customers or administrators
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kris Kirby
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 12:04 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Wai Chan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: outgoing traffic load balancing with multip
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Wai's biggest problem is that ISP#1 sends all traffic to
> ISP#2. While Wai can set up so that both routes are equal
> cost to the NOC that ISP#2 is connected to, in effect
> he is competing with his own traffic on the link from ISP#2
> to the rest of
TED]]
>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:18 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Wai Chan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: outgoing traffic load balancing with multiple ISP
>
>
>On Thu, 3 May 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> This gains ISP#1 multiple paths to ISP#2
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> This gains ISP#1 multiple paths to ISP#2 - ie: More
> Bandwidth. Plus, it gives them a redundant backup in case their
> direct link to ISP#2 goes down.
>
> In exchange for this ISP#1 agrees to credit your bill to
> zero - in effect, you are now servi
I want load balancing on ISP1 and ISP2 (http traffic only for now). I don't
want all the http traffic go through ISP1 (nor ISP2).
I want:
50% http traffic go through ISP1
+ 50% http traffic go through
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 03:26:18PM -1000, Wai Chan wrote:
> We don't want to leave ISP 1's pipe empty. If the outgoing traffic is using
> the IP provided by ISP 1, then the returned traffic will be using ISP 1
> provided pipe. It applies to ISP 2 also. That's why I am trying to force
> half of
telstaedt
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: outgoing traffic load balancing with multiple ISP
>
>
>Our old network admin signed a stupid 5 years contract with ISP 1
>(the ISP 1
>uses ISP 2 for next hop), and we added ISP 2 when the new network admin
>arriv
contract. Anyway, stand BGP/route load balancing doesn't work very well for
us because all the traffic goes out and in through ISP 2.
We don't want to leave ISP 1's pipe empty. If the outgoing traffic is using
the IP provided by ISP 1, then the returned traffic will be using ISP 1
pro
route IP numbers supplied by ISP #1, unless you have been given
entire netblocks by both ISP's and are running BGP with both and are
advertising those netblocks. Even then, load balancing is a tricky problem
because it's almost entirely dependent on the destination IP numbers that
traf
trator, Network Technology
Hawaii Pacific University
+1 (808) 566-2423
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 01:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: outgoing tra
I have two ISPs (two different serial links to my router). I want 50% of
all outgoing traffic go through ISP 1 with ISP 1 provided IP address as
source address, and the other 50% of all outgoing traffic go through ISP 2
with ISP 2 provided IP address as source address.
Will this work if I add th
Also, and perhaps I should be more clear:
1. I am load-balancing outbound connections from an internal
(non-routable) network.
2. There are hardware solutions that do this.
3. There are Windows based programs that do this.
I will look into that probability stuff for ipfw, thus far it looks
You need a proper routing protocol to prevent asynchronous
routing..badbadbadbad.
*heh* Will routed let me run confederations too?
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nick Rogness wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DS
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I need
> to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, and
> would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't care
> about balancing
an't randomly
choose on of two rules (AFAIK)
2. ipnat + ipfilter: load-balancing rdr rules don't seem to want to
load-balance prior to mapping, and map rules don't accept multiple
destination choices.
3. Combinations of ipnat/natd + ipfilter/ipfw: I don't even know if this
is
Hi,
I have three possible ways to get to the internet from my FreeBSD gateway.
1) ADSL session via netgraph PPTP implementation. The interface used is ng0
2) ISDN dial-up via netgraph PPP. The interface used is ng1
3) direct connection (limited bandwidth), interface is sf3
Curr
86 matches
Mail list logo
