Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 01:24:00 -0600 From: Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> To: G Bryant <bsd@roamingsolutions.net> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: route selection and ipfw forwarding Message-ID: <43B8D510.2010908@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43B8CC58.9020906@roamingsolutions.net> References: <43B875FD.6000102@gmail.com> <43B8CC58.9020906@roamingsolutions.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It is possible to do load sharing, but not balancing in the true > sense of the word. You need to use ipfw's FWD rule to forward (push) > packets to the different gateways of the 4 WAN links, but it get's a > bit more complicated from there. To do this using forwarding to four different gateways is simple enough, but I'm not sure what results to expect by doing this to the same gateway over four different links. I know of no way to influence the decision and I am not sure how the routing algorithm would decide to handle this situation. > You now also need to keep-state on each of the sessions, and will > have to check-state of all established outgoing packets to send them > out the same WAN link as the rest of that sessions packets. I understand the importance of source-based routing with respect to transit, but I'm a bit unclear on how dynamic rules relate to forwarding. As long as all packets arrive at the destination and are properly addressed, the host should not care how they got there. I'm not sure if I know what you mean by session. I can't imagine an IPFW ruleset that would provide stateful routing. > It's a dirty solution, but I have a working system with 2 WAN links. > You can also use IPFW set's to manage the percentage splits betweeen > the links. (or for failover). Would you mind sharing your ipfw ruleset (ipfw list)?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43B8D510.2010908>