Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:43:06 +0100 From: "Zviratko" <q@seznam.cz> To: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ethernet bonding/load balancing on fbsd 4-stable Message-ID: <003501c1b7a8$4431d5f0$0500a8c0@notes> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202170018540.39539-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> > Hi,
> > is there a preferred way to do ethernet load balancing? My situation
is - 2
> > cable modems connected to two ethernet cards on with a machine
functioning
> > as a NAT gateway for LAN. I tried netgraph (ng_ether with round robin
and
> > ng_fec). With ng_ether, I achieved packets being sent via one interface
and
> > received on another one(not what I want), ng_fec didn't work at all (it
just
> > silently dropped all outgoing packets).
>
> ng_fec needs a cisco at the other end (or possibly another freebsd
> machine with ng_fec but I don't know that).
>
yes, bond.c does as well, but it worked in my situation because of the
structure of the network I am on (basically, the nearest other host that
understands IP is Cisco 6K (i think). It worked exactly in the way it should
with ng_fec - 2 interfaces with the same MAC and IP and round robin routing
policy. But when I look at netstat -in, I see no packets being sent out via
fec0 (and thus they are dropped somewhere :-( )
> > Is there another way? I already did this with linux (by using bond.c
> > similiar to ng_fec) and it worked under the same conditions.
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> if your outgoing packets are going to different hosts (and not just one)
> you could try:
>
> ipfw add 1000 fwd {remote 1} ip from any to 0.0.1.0:0.0.1.0 out xmit fxp1
> ipfw add 1001 fwd {remote 2} ip from any to 0.0.0.0:0.0.1.0 out xmit fxp1
>
> where "remote 1" and "remote 2" are the gateways on each cable modem,
> (or some address that will make them go to different ports)
> and fxp1 is the interface tha the routing table would make them go out of
> normally.
I will try that, but I guess default route has precedence over ipfw.
>
> alternatively, the netgraph approach should work but I'm guessing
> that you've set up something wrong..
> what is your configuration?
>
>
basically, I was trying the sample from man 4 ng_ether as following:
ed1: ne2k card connected to cable modem
ed2: ne2k card (another clone) connected to cable modem
ngctl mkpeer ed2: one2many upper one
ngctl connect ed2: ed2:upper lower many0
ngctl connect ed1: ed2:upper lower many1
ngctl msg ed1: setpromisc 1
ngctl msg ed1: setautosrc 0
# Configure all four links as up
ngctl msg ed2:upper \
setconfig "{ xmitAlg=1 failAlg=1 enabledLinks=[ 1 1 1 1 ] }"
# Bring up interface
ifconfig ed2 inet my.ip.goes.here netmask 255.255.255.0
then, I set a route to my default gw, but all packets are then routed via
one interface out and one in, but I want them flowing one-by-one via both as
I used to do with bond.c. The one solution would be to route packets
non-interface-specificaly, that means by random or round robin, but it seems
like the "route" command doesn't support specifying interface at all!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003501c1b7a8$4431d5f0$0500a8c0>