[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: lartc
Subject: [LARTC] RE: Re: IP Masquerade Issues
From: RonSenykoff () edapt ! us
Date: 2004-03-29 20:31:06
Message-ID: OF636DD42D.D511106E-ON86256E66.00708132-86256E66.0070DC74 () edapt ! us
[Download RAW message or body]
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0070DC7286256E66_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
<snip>
>teql can only be used if you control both sides of the link. There is
a=20
>chapter in the lartc howto on load balancing that can help you.
I think you are referring to 4.2.2 where they refer to load balancing -
however that seems to be route based. The setup I have - all three
machines
actually use the same gateway, but the gateway will only allow a certain
amount of traffic over any given interface, so several interfaces are
used.
Thus every interface will give the same route - so won't I run into issues
by doing it this way?
</snip>
My understading of this (I'm load balancing across DSL and cable) is that
what distinguishes a route is the interface on the linux box that is
chosen. The route (via what interface) is cached based on destination ip.
For each interface you can define the gateway that it uses. I don't see
this causing any problems for you at all. In fact, in the load balancing
configuration, when you create a weight of 2 for a given interface, it
actually creates 2 routes out that interface to include in the mix to
choose from, so having multiple routes with similar information should not
cause any confusion.
HTH
-Ron
--=_alternative 0070DC7286256E66_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"><snip></font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">>teql can only be used if you control
both sides of the link. There is a=20<br>
>chapter in the lartc howto on load balancing that can help you.<br>
<br>
I think you are referring to 4.2.2 where they refer to load balancing -<br>
however that seems to be route based. The setup I have - all three
machines<br>
actually use the same gateway, but the gateway will only allow a
certain<br>
amount of traffic over any given interface, so several interfaces are used.<br>
<br>
Thus every interface will give the same route - so won't I run into issues<br>
by doing it this way?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"></snip></font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">My understading of this (I'm load balancing
across DSL and cable) is that what distinguishes a route is the interface
on the linux box that is chosen. The route (via what interface) is cached
based on destination ip. For each interface you can define the gateway
that it uses. I don't see this causing any problems for you at all. In
fact, in the load balancing configuration, when you create a weight of
2 for a given interface, it actually creates 2 routes out that interface
to include in the mix to choose from, so having multiple routes with similar
information should not cause any confusion.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">HTH</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">-Ron</font>
<br>
--=_alternative 0070DC7286256E66_=--
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic