RE: Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter

Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I have thought about this approach, but, I think, this approach does not
handle failover/dead-gateway-detection well. Because you need to alter
all your netfilter routing rules if you find a link down. And then
reconfigure again when the link comes up. I am interested to know how
you handle that.

-----Original Message-----
From: lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Rabbitson
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:57 PM
To: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:  Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter

Hi,
I have searched the archives on the topic, and it seems that the list
gurus favor load balancing to be done in the kernel as opposed to other
means. I have been using a home-grown approach, which splits traffic
based on `-m statistic --mode random --probability X`, then CONNMARKs
the individual connections and the kernel happily routes them. I
understand that for > 2 links it will become impractical to calculate a
correct X. But if we only have 2 gateways to the internet - are there
any advantages in letting the kernel multipath scheduler do the
balancing (with all the downsides of route caching), as opposed to the
pure random approach described above?

Thanks

Peter
_______________________________________________
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

[Index of Archives]     [LARTC Home Page]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Development]     [Network Development]     [Bugtraq]     [GCC Help]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Fedora Users]
  Powered by Linux