I'm almost sure I don't need more NIC's... (only if you want to separate the nets physically you do neet more NIC's) With simple policy routing I already have a succesfull masquerading network with Source Subnet X going through gateway 1 and Source subnet Y going through gateway 2 (balancing the load based on subnet) It even works if those 2 gateways are on totally different subnets! just add an extra IP adress to your interface like this: #Ip addr add 10.50.50.10/24 dev eth0 brd 10.50.50.255 then add a second default route (for example to gateway 10.50.50.254) in table (for example testtable) like this: #Ip route add default dev eth0 via 10.50.50.254 table test Then add a rule to use the table from (for example) a specific subnet #Ip rule add pref 1000 table test from 192.168.0.0/16 And it's up and running! SO, I'm sure load balancing (multi path routes) must also be possible from the local machine I have it already working... so why not via masquerading? PS.. I read something about the "src" option in the route add command .. But it didn't seem to help me out. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Scott [mailto:GregScott@InfraSupportEtc.com] Sent: 31 July 2002 17:15 To: niels@wxn.nl; lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: RE: Multipath route problem > # ip route add default nexthop via 10.10.10.2 dev eth0 nexthop via > 10.10.10.1 dev eth0 I wonder if this is a problem going out over the same NIC to the two providers? All the docs I can find show each provider on its own NIC. I am setting up something similar and was just about to ask if I can do it with one NIC connecting all the providers. That would save me a bunch of precious PCI slots! _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
