LARTC
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [LARTC] Load Balance and SNAT problem.

To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Load Balance and SNAT problem.
From: Peter Rabbitson <rabbit@rabbit.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:09:21 +0200
Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: lartc-list@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: lartc@outpost.ds9a.nl
In-reply-to: <46821BB6.6000800@riverviewtech.net>
List-archive: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc>
List-help: <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=help>
List-id: "Mailinglist of the Linux Advanced Routing &amp; Traffic Control project" <lartc.mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-post: <mailto:lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc>, <mailto:lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <000001c7b862$0f009270$b9021d0a@SalimSi> <4681FBA2.7000709@rabbit.us> <468206F4.4090900@riverviewtech.net> <46820AA8.7020305@rabbit.us> <4682118C.1090106@riverviewtech.net> <468219B5.9060407@rabbit.us> <46821BB6.6000800@riverviewtech.net>
Sender: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070618)
Grant Taylor wrote:
On 6/27/2007 3:03 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
I want the kernel to be able to realize that a gateway is no good for
any destinations other than the specified netblock.

Would it be fair to say that you are wanting an administratively configurable "ignore addresses that fall with in this <network>" while deciding if a gateway is dead?

Obviously <network> would need to be a bit more than just an ip / netmask combination to make this realistic.

If this is what you are wanting, it may be possible to augment the kernel code that is used to detect dead gateways and have it check to see if the networks match a list (from somewhere in proc / sysfs / sysctl?) and not increment traffic counters. I am presuming that it is the traffic counters that have to be incremented for the kernel to think that a route is still alive. So, if you purposfully did not increment the counters, you could probably detect that a given gateway is no good.

Something along these lines, yes. Except that instead of a packet-counter there is a resettable timer, that gets reset anytime a matching packet comes in. When the timer goes over a specified limit - gateway is dead.

I think you would have to add an additional route that was to the given network(s) that did not use such a feature to provide a way for the routing code to route to those network(s) that it no longer would get to via a default gateway.


This would be a manual task for the administrator, there is no place for this in-kernel.

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>