yes , I would like to findout the solution for this situation too On 7/5/05, hareram <hareram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > in this case merging of all links to one big pipe > what if the one of the link fails.. its automatically detect > and combine rest of the links or it keep tries to send the packets dead > gateway > > > for example > > if i have 3 links.. one fails.. rest 2 become one (big pipe) link right ? > > or any other configuration required ?? or you given script works ?? > > hare > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Kurjata" <rkurjata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "ro0ot" <ro0ot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Linux Advanced Routing" <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:53 PM > Subject: Re[2]: [LARTC] Loadbalancing how to ? ? ? ? > > > > Witaj ro0ot, > > > > W Twoim liście datowanym 3 lipca 2005 (18:25:32) można przeczytać: > > > > r> Is it possible to combine the 2 or 4 ADSL line into 1 line (big pipe)? > > > > As I already wrote: Yes, (more or less :) with some limitations. All > > those "blind" loadbalancing solutions have one BIG drawback - they > > work for setups with lots and lots of concurent connections [cause > > single connection has to use single line], and one smaller but annoying - > > they cannot guarantee that subsequent reqests to the same host will > > use the same source IP - home banking affected most. > > > > > > r> Regards, > > r> ro0ot > > > > > > r> Robert Kurjata wrote: > > > >>>Witaj Cao, > >>> > >>>W Twoim liście datowanym 2 lipca 2005 (17:40:05) można przeczytać: > >>> > >>>CVK> I have 2 ADSL ad1 and ad2 , one PC for my firewall and some > >>>CVK> deamon on it with 3 ethernet : eth0 connect to my LAN ( > >>> > >>>This question comes and goes on this list :) > >>> > >>>Please read information at: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ , especially > >>>http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt > >>>and you can try my script http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/tmp/mpath2.sh to > >>>load balance 2 (or more - I was using 4) connections with great > >>>success. No daemon needed :) > >>> > >>>There are also other solutions in list archive. > >>> > >>>IMHO the routing code has precedence over iptables so it chooses the > >>>outgoing interface over which the iptables will SNAT in input routing > >>>process. And thats why you will not see the effect in this setup (thi > >>>interface has already been chosen). It is possible (and > >>>reasonable) to SNAT to multiple IPs residing on one interface. > >>> > >>>Correct me if I'm wrong, please...:) > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pozdrowienia, > > Robert > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LARTC mailing list > > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > -- ------------------------------- Cao Van Khanh
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
