Networking Forums

Networking Forums > Computer Networking > Linux Networking > Help : Load Balancing trouble

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Help : Load Balancing trouble

 
 
Judicator
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-26-2005, 01:20 AM
Hello,

I have a load balanced linux router working (thanks to lartc website).

In fact, It's working too much well ..... Some protocols, like IM
protocols (ICQ, MSN) need to keep the same route with the server .....
And my system is keeping switching route for each data sent ..... and
cause disconections or the IM network is impossible to connect ......


Is there a way to force a specific route depending on the destination
ports ?

An iptable rule missing ? an ip route setting missing ? don't know

Thanks for your help !


Here is my ip route list (I've put some X for security reason):

82.234.XXX.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 82.234.XXX.XXX
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.254
82.228.XXX.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 82.228.XXX.XXX
default equalize
nexthop via 82.234.XXX.XXX dev eth0 weight 1
nexthop via 82.228.XXX.XXX dev eth2 weight 1


Here is my iptable rules :

Chain INPUT (policy DROP)
target prot opt source destination
INETIN all -- anywhere anywhere
ACCEPT all -- 192.168.0.0/24 anywhere
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere

Chain FORWARD (policy DROP)
target prot opt source destination
INETIN all -- anywhere anywhere
INETOUT all -- anywhere anywhere
ACCEPT all -- 192.168.0.0/24 anywhere

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
INETOUT all -- anywhere anywhere

Chain INETIN (2 references)
target prot opt source destination
ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
echo-request
ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
echo-reply
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state
ESTABLISHED
ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp
dpts:1024:65535
ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp
dpts:1024:65535

Chain INETOUT (2 references)
target prot opt source destination
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere

Chain LOG_ACCEPT (0 references)
target prot opt source destination
LOG all -- anywhere anywhere LOG level
warning
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere

Chain LOG_DROP (0 references)
target prot opt source destination
LOG all -- anywhere anywhere LOG level
warning
DROP all -- anywhere anywhere
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
buck
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-26-2005, 02:53 AM
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:20:44 +0100, Judicator <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have a load balanced linux router working (thanks to lartc website).
>
>In fact, It's working too much well ..... Some protocols, like IM
>protocols (ICQ, MSN) need to keep the same route with the server .....
>And my system is keeping switching route for each data sent ..... and
>cause disconections or the IM network is impossible to connect ......
>
>
>Is there a way to force a specific route depending on the destination
>ports ?
>
>An iptable rule missing ? an ip route setting missing ? don't know


Did you apply Julian's route patch? It is not just for Dead Gateway
Detection.
http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd.txt
http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd-usage.txt
http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt

Have you looked at this? Perhaps there is something common that could
be used in applying CONNMARK. BEWARE: nexthop will probably not
compile.
http://selab.edu.ms/twiki/bin/view/N...inuxNetworking

I have just the opposite "problem"; `ip route flush cache` is required
to shake loose the persistent routing.
http://linux-ip.net/html/tools-ip-ro...te-flush-cache

Here is how I special case by IP
ip rule add prio 50 to $DestIP/32 table $TBL
where $TBL points to the interface I want the connection to use.

buck

 
Reply With Quote
 
Judicator
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-27-2005, 04:37 PM
buck a écrit :
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:20:44 +0100, Judicator <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have a load balanced linux router working (thanks to lartc website).
>>
>>In fact, It's working too much well ..... Some protocols, like IM
>>protocols (ICQ, MSN) need to keep the same route with the server .....
>>And my system is keeping switching route for each data sent ..... and
>>cause disconections or the IM network is impossible to connect ......
>>
>>
>>Is there a way to force a specific route depending on the destination
>>ports ?
>>
>>An iptable rule missing ? an ip route setting missing ? don't know

>
>
> Did you apply Julian's route patch? It is not just for Dead Gateway
> Detection.
> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd.txt
> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd-usage.txt
> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt
>
> Have you looked at this? Perhaps there is something common that could
> be used in applying CONNMARK. BEWARE: nexthop will probably not
> compile.
> http://selab.edu.ms/twiki/bin/view/N...inuxNetworking
>
> I have just the opposite "problem"; `ip route flush cache` is required
> to shake loose the persistent routing.
> http://linux-ip.net/html/tools-ip-ro...te-flush-cache
>
> Here is how I special case by IP
> ip rule add prio 50 to $DestIP/32 table $TBL
> where $TBL points to the interface I want the connection to use.
>
> buck
>

hi,

I'll first try to apply the julian patch ...... I thought that it was
only for helping things :-)

thanks a lot for your help
 
Reply With Quote
 
Judicator
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-28-2005, 12:42 AM
About your trouble :

have a look to the netsane script : http://muse.linuxmafia.org/netsane/

maybe It'll work with it ;-)

buck a écrit :
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:20:44 +0100, Judicator <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have a load balanced linux router working (thanks to lartc website).
>>
>>In fact, It's working too much well ..... Some protocols, like IM
>>protocols (ICQ, MSN) need to keep the same route with the server .....
>>And my system is keeping switching route for each data sent ..... and
>>cause disconections or the IM network is impossible to connect ......
>>
>>
>>Is there a way to force a specific route depending on the destination
>>ports ?
>>
>>An iptable rule missing ? an ip route setting missing ? don't know

>
>
> Did you apply Julian's route patch? It is not just for Dead Gateway
> Detection.
> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd.txt
> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/dgd-usage.txt
> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt
>
> Have you looked at this? Perhaps there is something common that could
> be used in applying CONNMARK. BEWARE: nexthop will probably not
> compile.
> http://selab.edu.ms/twiki/bin/view/N...inuxNetworking
>
> I have just the opposite "problem"; `ip route flush cache` is required
> to shake loose the persistent routing.
> http://linux-ip.net/html/tools-ip-ro...te-flush-cache
>
> Here is how I special case by IP
> ip rule add prio 50 to $DestIP/32 table $TBL
> where $TBL points to the interface I want the connection to use.
>
> buck
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NLB on DC's for DNS load balancing BSweeney Windows Networking 10 07-25-2007 02:48 PM
Load Balancing... TorwaK Windows Networking 1 12-10-2005 09:24 PM
Load Balancing Phil Andersen Windows Networking 2 04-15-2004 08:16 PM
NIC Load Balancing Chicho Windows Networking 2 02-20-2004 06:55 PM
Load Balancing Alex Windows Networking 0 12-22-2003 11:59 PM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11