Re: Do I need ipt_ROUTE to do this?

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

 



On 11/14/07 09:55, Brian S Julin wrote:
I need to determine A) if the below solution is workable and B) if there is any way to do the following without using ipt_ROUTE, what seems to be removed from most distros now due to build problems, and is still marked experimental.

Objective: We have two ISPs sending routes in via BGP, however both ISPs traffic is consolidated on a single link. There is no vlan tag, MPLS wrap, or any other way to distinguish the traffic coming in, only the BGP table. We need to separate this traffic onto two physical links in both directions, so that inline proprietary stateful packet shapers can work on each link independently.

What type of physical connection do you have leaving your router that has both upstream providers going out the same physical connection? Are you using multiple providers over the same ethernet connection? (I'm going to presume yes for the sake of discussion.)

<snip>

Sorry, I can't comment on the BGP as I have no experience working with it.

Can anyone think of a way to do this without using -j ROUTE or gluing things together with scripts? This has to be a "stable" solution. Not opposed to using ebtables/bridging, either way is fine.

I'm glad that you mentioned EBTables and bridging because that is the first place that I was going to go. This statement further makes me believe that you are dealing with an ethernet solution. If this is indeed the case I'm betting that each provider connects to the same ethernet segment out side of your control, thus you can not put your load management equipment upstream before the traffic is aggregated. However if this is an ethernet connection, that means that you should have the MAC address of the router(s) that are putting the ethernet frames on the segment.

If you have the MAC addresses, you could easily set up a Linux box to divide the traffic based on source MAC address. Have one interface pointing up stream, one pointing downstream to one piece of equipment, and one pointing downstream to the other piece of equipment.

So long as the upstream MAC addresses do not change on you (they should not, or it should be predictable) you can direct the traffic one way or the other. If for some reason your upstream provider has multiple MAC addresses, you can use multiple as a key to send one way or the other.

I'm not quite sure what the proper EBTables config would be, but I suspect that it would be something along the lines of allowing traffic to come in the upstream interface and out one downstream interface while blocking traffic out the other downstream interface for provider and switch the downstream interfaces for the other provider. You would probably want to block or seriously limit the flow of traffic from one down stream interface to the other too. Naturally you will need to allow traffic that comes in the downstream interfaces to go out the upstream interface.



Grant. . . .
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux