Re: Balancing the load betwen two diferent internet conection

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

 



On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 06:48:21PM -0300, Charrua wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> > We have 2 different dedicated Internet connections (with two different
> > carriers). Naturally, each connection has different groups of IP
> > addresses. Each of the connections has a Cisco 1601 router at our end. 
> > 1. We would like to use a Linux PC to balance the load (of outgoing
> > traffic from our backbone to the Internet) between the two connections. 
> > 
> > Someone told us that creating two default routes in the Linux machine, we
> > could achieve that goal (one default route would point to the router from
> > carrier "A", and the other default route would point to the router from
> > carrier "B". In this way we would accomplish that one outgoing packet be
> > sent through one of the routers and the next packet through the other
> > router.
> > 
> > When we tried this, the Linux machine sent ALL outgoing packets through
> > the second default route (the last default route that we had created).
> > 
> > The questions are: 
> >  - Should this work ?
> >  - If so, is it necessary to recompile the kernel, or are we doing
> > something wrong ?

You probably want to compile routing multipath support in:

IP: equal cost multipath
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
Normally, the routing tables specify a single action to be taken in
a deterministic manner for a given packet. If you say Y here
however, it becomes possible to attach several actions to a packet
pattern, in effect specifying several alternative paths to travel
for those packets. The router considers all these paths to be of
equal "cost" and chooses one of them in a non-deterministic fashion
if a matching packet arrives.

I did look very deeply at the code, but from the comments it looks like
the "nondeterministic fashion" actually produces a weighted division of
outgoint traffic.

> > 2. Does anyone know how to balance incoming traffic to our backbone ?
> >    (Without having an autonomous system, which we don't have and are far
> > from having).

This is more difficult (or I did not understand what you meant). Could you
please elaborate on this?

Regards,
-- 
Andrea Glorioso		sama(at)aglorioso(dot)com
			Padua, Italy
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu


[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux