Hi, I don't share your opinion. In fact, I worked hard to get all this things working and finally it DOES work. I followed the explanation in the LARTC-HOWTO in section 4.2: ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 table 10 ip route add default via $P1 table 10 ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 table 20 ip route add default via $P2 table 20 ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 # This may be not necessary ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 # This may be not necessary ## ip route add default via $P1 ## You don't have to set this default gw, because you'll be routing accross this gateway instead of doing load-balance ip rule add from $IP1 table T1 ip rule add from $IP2 table T2 ip route add default scope global nexthop via $P1 dev $IF1 weight 1 \ nexthop via $P2 dev $IF2 weight 1 That's all, the last command is the default mutlipath gateway you will route packets accross. > > i´ve been searching for a load balance solution since a month > ago... what i can say is that it simply doesn´t work. I was > unable to find one guy that did it with sucess. When "load > balance" is the subject of the message on the list, the > message is simply ignored. > So... if it doesn´t work... why LARTC don´t delete it from the > HOW TO and answer us with some "it simply doesn´t work... > give up man!". This can save the time of a lot of guys, > including me.... > Tks anyway > _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
