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
