+-----------+ +---------+ +--------+ | ...245.18 +-----+ ...77.1 | +-------+ | ...0.x +-----+ ...0.1 | | COLO +-----+ 101.x | +--------+ | ...245.19 +-----+ ...78.1 | +-------+ +-----------+ +---------+ > > (Slight clean up.) > > > Where are you doing your NATing to the world? Are you NATing on your > PPtP tunnels or on the COLO system? Currently I'm natting on 0.1 ( -o ppp+ -j MASQUERADE ) , This was setup by default as I did not want 0.x to be routed. I've however taken off the natting, and added a route for 0.20/32 dev ppp62 nexthop dev ppp32 ( the 2 vpn interfaces) at COLO and obviously same nexthop routes at 0.1 for 101.x testing from 0.20, I scp a tar file over to 101.20 , still goes via one line at time, the route cache which I disabled, just reroute it the whole time( about every 5 sec) via the diffrent uplink, but not to our result we want I use sysstat to check the speeds and tcpdump verified I its from 0.20 -> 101.20 ssh > > If you are doing your NATing on the COLO system and you add two routes > to your internal network via the two PPtP tunnels, you should be able to > equal cost multipath route across both PPtP tunnels to achieve increased > bandwidth. The key part is that both tunnels have to appear to the > world as a single external IP. I understand now very clearly the key part. My problem must be the tunnel, im sure im messing up, the equal cost multipath routing , am I using the right utitily? , still iproute2 right, or is iptables gonna play big part here as well? S _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc