Hi There,
the bigger the weight relative to the other gateway the more likely it
is chosen a weight of 1 and 100 will mean the 100 choice is 100x more
likely in theory.
If either gateway is down the other is routed automatically,
I have two 8 meg SDSL lines at home and balance them in this way....
P.
Indunil Jayasooriya wrote:
HI Peter,
Interesting in deed. You say that You can add a second route and
weight it as follows:
ip route add equalize *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often
malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> scope global
nexthop via
*MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:*
192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254/> dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via
*MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:*
192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250/> dev eth0 weight 1
I want to know whether I can use the above command , when the below
command exists .
ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often
malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> via *MailScanner
warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.254
<http://192.168.0.254/>
Then I want to know about your second answer which is "To achieve the
goal of primary path only, you can heavily weight one path over the
other, some traffic will still spill into the other, you
can remove the equalize parameter to disable this behaviour "
herein, what is this "you can heavily weight one path over the other"
When weight 1 and weight 1 , Both paths are equal. If I use weight 1
and weight 100 , what would be the primary path ? Is it weight 1 ?
Is it the lower number which becomes primary ?
Then , in my case, is the following coomad is right?
ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often
malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> scope global
nexthop via
*MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:*
192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254/> dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via
*MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:*
192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250/> dev eth0 weight 100
I guess with the above command that traffc will flow via primary, when
it fails , traffic will flow via secondary.
That is what I need.
Am I right ? Then can I acheive this goal ?
Thanks
Indunil
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Aleksandar Milivojevic* <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Dec 30, 2006 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways.
To: centos@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Quoting Indunil Jayasooriya < indunil75@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:indunil75@xxxxxxxxx>>:
> Hi ,
>
> I have a network to reach which is *MailScanner warning: numerical
links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24>. It
is a branch of the
> company. I have currently added a route to that network via one
gateway (
> *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:*
192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254>) in following way.
>
> ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often
malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> via *MailScanner
warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.254
<http://192.168.0.254>
>
> Now, We got another gateway which is *MailScanner warning: numerical
links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250>. Now
I want to add a
> route to the same network which is *MailScanner warning: numerical
links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> via
this gateway
> (*MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:*
192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250>)
> as well.
>
> Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be
primary and
> the other path should be backup. everything should go via primary
path.
>
> if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active.
>
> That is the purpose of doing this.
>
> Pls let me know whether it is possible or not?
>
> if possible, How can I achieve this goal.
One possible solution is to enable one of the routing protocols on
your routers, instead of using static routing. For example BGP or
OSPF. The routers will than discover which paths to every of the
networks you have exist and will dynamically change routing rules
(instead of using static set of rules) as the network connections go
up and down. In the way you requested in your question. It might be
an overkill for simple network. But if your network becomes more
complex in the future, you'll have infrastructure to handle it.
Another advantage of using standard routing protocol is that they tend
to be platform independent. You want to replace that Cisco router
with Linux router or Linux router with Cisco router. Guess what, you
can use BGP or OSPF on both Linux and Cisco based router and your
configuration is not specific to single type of router anymore.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
Thank you
Indunil Jayasooriya
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the *Enhancion* <http://www.enhancion.net/>
system scanner,
and is believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Enhancion system Scanner
and is believed to be clean.
http://www.enhancion.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
