+-----------+ +---------+
+--------+ | ...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
