Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:50:49 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CARP and NAT question Message-ID: <2591c7ce-887e-0e38-bb69-01c1e0ba5bd4@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20191009093454.GU2691@home.lan> References: <20191008134851.GP2691@home.lan> <a0a3a5c2-1300-b90b-3114-ae80adcf7f4d@shrew.net> <20191008155813.GS2691@home.lan> <b182358f-8ec0-4a71-b201-1736282d847d@freebsd.org> <20191009093454.GU2691@home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/9/19 2:34 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:05:37PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 10/8/19 8:58 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:20:34AM -0500, Matthew Grooms wrote: >>>> Hi Julien, >>> Hi Matthew, >>> >>>> It's not clear why you are trying to assign multiple carp IP address to >>>> two different interfaces from within the same IP subnet. Are you trying >>>> to fail over a 2nd carp address or are you trying to improve >>>> throughput/redundancy? If you just want to fail over a 2nd carp address, >>>> assign a 2nd alias to your first interface. If your trying to improve >>>> throughput/redundancy, assign both interfaces to a lagg and build your >>>> carp interfaces on top of that instead. >>>> >>> Currently outbound traffic from $net1 and $net2 (two private networks) >>> pass through the same network interface (igb0) (as you can see in (1) >>> in my previous post) on the router. I'd like to prevent that >>> $net2 saturates the interface and slow down traffic from $net1 (which is >>> more important). I could lagg and build CARP on top of that but it >>> wouldn't prevent $net2 to saturate the interface (unless I'm plugin ALTQ >>> of course, which I'd like to avoid). >>> >>>> -Matthew >>>> >>>> On 10/8/2019 8:48 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to NAT outbound traffic from two different private networks >>>>> through two different interfaces, with CARP on top. I have 4 public IPS >>>>> available (193.x.x.89, 193.x.x.90, 193.x.x.91, 193.x.x.92). >>>>> >>>>> I have two redundant router/firewall running FreeBSD 12 with CARP and >>>>> PF with the following: (1) which works well, but all traffic >>>>> goes through the same interface. >>>>> >>>>> So I'd like to switch to something like (2), which will not work (lines >>>>> 5 and 13 are not valid) and I'm wondering if I could use something like >>>>> (3) ..? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> Julien >>>>> >>>>> (1) https://gist.github.com/silenius/4f6173a9b6690292c2174ab3bb89d292 >>>>> (2) https://gist.github.com/silenius/da9be7e74e9861fa55f927d194e3e410 >>>>> (3) https://gist.github.com/silenius/b237565b0d181248ff80ea296e5537db >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> can you draw it? > yes, see https://ibb.co/mv5RPM9 so, you have several ways of doing this: one is to assign a different routing table to each class of traffic. Each table has a different default route, sending data out to a different external interface. Each interface out is NAT'd so that the return packets will come back the same way. But you only have a single pipe to the internet, So one wonders how that helps with redundancy? > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2591c7ce-887e-0e38-bb69-01c1e0ba5bd4>