Arthur,
Thanks for your help. I tried what you suggested, here is the result:
# /sbin/ip route add default nexthop via 24.141.xxx.1 nexthop via
64.229.xxx.1
RTNETLINK answers: Network is unreachable
So instead, I tried:
# /sbin/ip route add default nexthop via 24.141.xxx.1 dev eth0 nexthop via
64.229.xxx.1 dev ppp0
# ip route ls
64.229.xxx.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 64.229.xxx.12
24.141.xxx.0/22 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 24.141.xxx.89
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
default
nexthop via 24.141.xxx.1 dev eth0 weight 1
nexthop via 64.229.xxx.1 dev ppp0 weight 1
and that seemed to work, so I tried:
# /sbin/ip route add default nexthop dev eth0 nexthop dev ppp0
# ip route ls
64.229.xxx.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 64.229.xxx.12
24.141.xxx.0/22 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 24.141.xxx.89
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
default
nexthop dev eth0 weight 1
nexthop dev ppp0 weight 1
Now this seems to work. Is there anything wrong with this? Can you take
a guess at why what you suggested didn't work? I think I tried all the
different permutations with addresses, I think the problem must come from
the pppoe interface.
Now all I have to do is kludge something together for my redundancy, set
up firewalling, and masqerading.
Thanks,
Paul
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 hesselsp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Well, I think I have the redundancy down... In a kludgy way. Right now I
> > have two default routes.
>
> > route add default gw 24.141.xxx.1
> > route add default gw 64.229.xxx.1
>
> Actually, if I understand the code correctly what you do here is in fact
> create a multipath route. A cleaner way to do so is using ip route 2 as
> follows:
>
> ip route add default nexthop via 24.141.xxx.1 nexthop via 64.229.xxx.1
>
> This explicitly states that you will be using a multipath route and balances
> outgoing routes over the two interfaces.
>
> > I can write a script that if one of connections goes down for x number of
> > pings, then remove the route.
>
> And here's the crux. It would be nice for the kernel to use its idea of
> gateway reachability (in the neighbor cache) to automatically ignore an
> upstream hop in case it is dead. However, for multipath routes, no
> death detection is done on the gateways in the different hops. This is
> quite somewhat different from the single default route behaviour
>
> > Now for the load balancing.
>
> The kernel balances outgoing routes over the upstream interfaces. Unless all
> your packets go to the same address, that should balance your traffic
> already. Other than that there's some code based on EQL that will flush the
> route cache after every packet, thereby smashing the route-balancing down to
> packet-level load balancing. I can't seem to find the URL for that code,
> though, unfortunately.
>
> > Can you point me to documentation on iproute? Other then the Advanced
> > Routing HOWTO, unless I am missing something in it.
>
> http://snafu.freedom.org/linux2.2/iproute-notes.html#doc
>
> There's some more interesting stuff on http://snafu.freedom.org/linux2.2/
> as well.
>
> Doei, Arthur.
>
>
--
HEY! I'm a guy like me!
--Homer
