Re: Multipath route

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



> jose nuno neto pisze:
>> GoodMornings
>> Thanks for your input
>> Im looking for redundancy but a little extra:
>>
>> I have already bonding
>>
>> bond0 :- eth0 + eth1
>> bond1 :- eth2 + eth3
>>
>> And I have a IP witch I can reach from the 2Lans
>> Its a ILOM IP that I use for PowerFencing on a cluster setup
>> Since I have the paths I thought I could use them to get extra
>> reliability
>> Thats why I went into this iproute thing...
>>
>> BestRegards
>> Jose
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: linux-net-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:linux-net-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of wk
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:56 AM
>>>> To: linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Multipath route
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago we were faced with a problem with multiple network
>>>> interfaces in the same subnetwork.
>>>> We would like to use several NIC's with IP addresses from the same
>>>> subnetwork with link redundancy functionality.
>>>>
>>> If link redundancy is what you are after, you might want to consider
>>> Ethernet bonding as an alternative. Instead of several network
>>> interfaces
>>> each with its own IP address, you get a single virtual interface that
>>> you
>>> assign addresses to and the physical interfaces become slaves to that
>>> virtual interface. The bonding code switches the active interface when
>>> the
>>> current active interface's link goes down.
>>>
>>> See linux/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt in your kernel source
>>> tree.
>>>
>>> Note there were at one time issues with using IPv6 over bonded
>>> interfaces.
>>> I don't know if they have been addressed in newer kernel versions, but
>>> for
>>> IPv4 it seems to work fine. Brocade has used it on some of its SAN
>>> products for a few years now.
>>>
>
> Jose,
>
> Could you try to apply the patch I've sent yesterday and tell us if it
> works for you?
>
> This patch can be applied against 2.6.33 kernel and probably earlier
> kernel versions, although I tested it only on 2.6.33.

Im running a RedHat 2.6.18-164.2.1.el5 and it supposed to be supported by
the Redhat after, so think I cannot patch the kernel....
But from your previous post, it seems to do what I wanned, I cant have
that behavior from non patched kernel?

>
> That what you need to do in your case is to configure your route as you
> wrote:
>
> 172.26.240.4
>          nexthop via 172.26.247.248  dev bond1 weight 1
>          nexthop via 172.26.31.248  dev bond0 weight 1
>
> and additionally:
>
> # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/nexthop_alg
>
>
> regards,
> WK
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]