|
I think there is a simple solution to all this.
This is what we do in DVB recieve-only service. What u have to do is to
masquerade all ur outgoing traffic to some ip address of ur 1.5 mb link and
route it through 384kbps link. As the ip address which is sent out is of that of
1.5 mb link ..it will return back through ur 1.5 mb link automatically
.
Only restriction is that u shld hv real
ips for both links , what i mean by that is ..ur outgoing
traffic shld not get masquerade agn ..as then the traffic
will come back thgh the same link.
Deepak Singhal
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Routing
Actually, both lines must use PPPOE - non static ip's (thanks Verizon and
Bellatlantic), I had the Bellatlantic account before the merger, and now have
the second through Verizon. Doing a double pppoe is no big deal thanks
to Roaring Penguin's software using the GUI that is available. If my
understanding is correct - if I could change the source address of all the
packets going out through the 384 line to read what the pppoe address is for
the 1.5mb line - should that not work? The rest of the world would see
the source address as that of the 1.5 line instead of the 384 line. I
just don't know how to do that.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Routing
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Dave Miller wrote:
>
>
> I am running RH 7.0 (kernel 2.2.16) as a router/masq machine with 5
windows
> > machines connected internally. I have 2 dsl lines
as internet
> > connections, - the first is 384k up and down.
The second is 1.5mbit down
> > and only 90kb up. Is there a way
to send all my upload / requests out
> > the 384 line, but have it
return on the download side of the 1.5mb line?
>
> If both lines
serve the same network, yes. However, as the dsl lines are
> most
probably not to IP addresses in the same network, it is quite unlikely
>
that you will succeed. The problem is not whether or not you can
configure
> your system to do so; the problem is getting the rest of the
world to
> recognize that your return packets should be routed back to
provider 2
> even though your packets came from provider 1.
>
> > That would give me the best of both worlds currently.
>
> Since I'm using masq., does that complicate things?
> > Would I
be better off using Kernel 2.4 with it's advanced features?
>
>
For routing that is a non-issue. All advanced routing stuff was in
2.2.17
> already, but the traffic control stuff didn't mature until
2.4.
>
> Doei, Arthur.
>
> --
>
/\ / | arthurvl@xxxxxxxxxx
| Work like you don't need the money
> /__\ / | A
friend is someone with whom | Love like you have never been hurt
>
/ \/__ | you can dare to be yourself | Dance
like there's nobody watching
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list /
LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc
HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
|
