|
All, Further to this email below, in order to
get split access load balancing across the two SHDSL services in the diagram
below, I’m thinking it makes more sense to have the standard split access
configuration (as outlined in section 4.2 of the LARTC document) would make
more sense. That is, on the ETH RTR, have this: ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 table T1 ip route add default via $P1 table T1 ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 table T2 ip route add default via $P2 table T2 ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 ip route add default via $P1 ip rule add from $IP1 table T1 ip rule add from $IP2 table T2 ________ +------------+ / y.y.y.1/30 | | | +-------------+ SHDSL RTR1 +-- SHDSL line-- __ y.y.y.2/30 | | | b.b.b.b/32 / ___/ \_ +------+-------+ +------------+ | _/ \__ | if1 | / / \ | | || Local network -----+if3 ETH RTR | | Internet \_ __/ | | | \__ __/ | if2 | \ \___/ +------+-------+ +------------+ | x.x.x.2/30 | | | \ +-------------+ SHDSL RTR2 +--SHDSL line-- x.x.x.1/30 | | a.a.a.a/32 |+------------+ \________ This way the complexity in having multiple
default routes from two IP ranges (one from each provider) from the hosts in the
local network (web app server, email, etc) is removed by having just the IF3 interface
on the ETH RTR as the default route for the local network servers, and then using
the split access approach above on the ETH RTR to do the outbound load
balancing. Can anyone confirm if this is a sensible
and doable approach? Regards Adam From: Adam Neat
[mailto: Hi All, I’m a big user of the LARTC document but am currently
stuck with a question around section 4.2 (http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html)
in relation to “Routing for multiple uplinks/providers”. I’m wanting to do a similar setup to the diagram where
I have – lets just say for the moment – two uplink providers where
I want to route over two SHDSL lines for performance and availability. I have
two separate IP ranges; one from each, and I plan to give key servers on the
Local Network two IPs. In your example your ip route commands are inferring one
router – if I had two routers, one connected to each of the two
providers, are those setup commands applicable, by changing the destination
values to be the internet Ethernet interface of the other router for the other
link? Eg: Router 1 – Provider 1: ip route add $P1_NET dev $IF1 src $IP1 table T1 ip route add default via $P1 table T1 ip route add $P2_NET gw $RTR2 src $IP2 table T2 ip route add default via $P1 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 gw $RTR2 weight 1Router 2 – Provider 2: ip route add $P2_NET dev $IF2 src $IP2 table T2 ip route add default via $P2 table T2 ip route add $P1_NET gw $RTR1 src $IP1 table T2 ip route add default via $P2 ip rule add from $IP1 table T1 ip rule add from $IP2 table T2 ip route add default scope global nexthop via $P2 dev $IF1 weight 1 \ nexthop via $P1 gw $RTR1 weight 1Then for each machine on the network, would I give them two default routes (one to each gw) or?I can’t seem to get my head around how this should work and I’m low on spare lab machines to test this out.Appreciate any guidance,Season Greetings and RegardsAdam |
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
