Re: OT: iprout2 question

To: "Joseph Mack" <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>, "Pietro Ravasio" <pietro.ravasio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: OT: iprout2 question
Cc: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Ted Pavlic" <tpavlic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:28:22 -0400
Now I really have had no need to move to iproute2 yet, so I still use route
to do most of my routing and only get complicated with iproute stuff when I
have to create more than one tunnel device... so this may not be valid.

But thinking in a "route" state of mind, couldn't you just set the metric
higher on the default gateway with the lower priority? The one with the
lower metric will take all the traffic. When that one is removed, it'll do
the second one. I'm fairly sure Linux will favor the route with the lowest
metric, no?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pietro Ravasio" <pietro.ravasio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joseph Mack" <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: OT: iprout2 question

> At 12.11 25/09/00 -0400, Joseph Mack wrote:
> >the RFC's allow you to have multiple default gateways, but don't specify
> >how they are used (it's been a while).
> >So in principle yes (or do you already know this?).
> >I don't know how Linux handles this.
> No, i didn't know it, even if I imagined that (linux kernel does allow you
> to have multiple gateways, but really use only the first one it finds
> "reading" routing tables... So it never uses the second one!) Now I would
> like to manage this (and expecially one of the gateway hosts failure)
> without using dinamic routing!
> Thanks for your help!
> Pietro Ravasio

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