11:36 p.m.
I now have my load balancing router up and running on two modems, one cable
modem and one DSL. So far, it seems to be doing what it's supposed to be
doing.
(For folks who remember my earlier questions regarding this matter, I did try
to order that Xincom router but after much fiddling about was eventually told
that it is out of stock. However, this Dlink DI-LB604 is supposed to do the
same thing. It was also $30 cheaper.)
I have a question about /etc/resolv.conf in relation to this setup.
Each of my two ISPs have two nameservers for customer use. For the sake of
demonstration, let's say that ISP A has nameserver 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 while
ISP B has nameservers 3.3.3.3 and 4.4.4.4
Now, the name of my internal network is melvilletheatre.net.
My /etc/resolv.conf from when I was using only one single ISP and a regular
(single WAN) router was as follows:
search melvilletheatre.net
nameserver 1.1.1.1
nameserver 2.2.2.2
When I set up this dual router, I changed /etc/resolv.conf to this:
search melvilletheatre.net
nameserver 1.1.1.1
nameserver 3.3.3.3
nameserver 2.2.2.2
nameserver 4.4.4.4
This seems to be working at the moment, but I know of at least one problem.
"man resolv.conf" tells me that there can be a maximum of three nameserver
entries so I assume that the 4.4.4.4 entry is being ignored.
My question is, is there a better way to set this up? In addition to load
balancing this router also does failover, so if one of my connections goes down
things are supposed to keep chugging along anyway using the other connection.
It seems like this would be another factor in properly
configuring /etc/resolv.conf because as it is now if ISP A drops then I think I
have only one working nameserver entry left in /etc/resolv.conf at that time.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
3:16 a.m.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:55:18 +0100
Chris G <cl(a)isbd.net> wrote:
I couldn't get load balancing to work initially and asked for
help
from Draytek support, they advised that I needed to specify the
nameservers in the router. What they suggested was to put two
nameservers into the router, using your notation, nameserver 1.1.1.1 and
nameserver 3.3.3.3. Then, in addition, I had to set another option
that forced all traffic to 1.1.1.1 through WAN1 and all traffic to
3.3.3.3 through WAN2. It now works and I get load balancing between
the two ADSL connections.
After further experimenting, I too have discovered that this seems to work
best. In the "protocol and port binding" configuration screen, I directed UDP
and TCP port 53 to WAN1 for 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, and WAN2 for 3.3.3.3 and
4.4.4.4
Now this outfit rattles right along. Before I did the above step (just an hour
or so ago) when you went to a new web page you had to wait a second before it
started to load. Now, that momentary wait seems to be gone. Click - boom.
Here's your web page. I think I was getting some kind of dns timeouts before
if I sent a dns request to a nameserver from the wrong IP address. DNS
requests, too, seem to alternate.
I logged into my webserver and watched the log file while I loaded my website
and found that things are indeed doing what they should. Every alternate
graphic (approximately) was downloaded by each IP address. graphic 1 by address
1, graphic 2 by address 2, graphic 3 by address 1 again, and so on.
Now I can see that things are definitely going faster than they were when I was
using just one Internet connection. In fact, it's damned impressive.
I doubt it matters much what you put in /etc/resolv.conf after the
first two nameservers, if it's using the third something is probably
rather amiss anyway.
You're probably right. My current resolv.conf seems to be doing the job -- at
least, it's running a damn sight faster than it ever has before. If this is
broken, then I'd like to break a few more.
In fact I think the best way is probably to get the router to act as
your local nameserver (mine can do that though I haven't actually
tried to set it up this way yet). Then all PCs on the LAN just have
the router's IP as their name server and you can choose what
nameservers everyone uses by changing what the router uses.
As far as I can tell, this router doesn't do that. At least, I haven't
discovered anything that suggests that it can, so far. There are a ton of
configuration screens here, though, so I could easily have missed it.
I wonder if there would be any benefit to running a caching nameserver on this
computer. What's the current "best way" to get one of those running on
Fedora
8? That's another thing that I've never tried and perhaps it's worth giving
that a shot too while I'm at it.
Ultimately, if any of you folks reading this want to give your Internet access
a real kick in the rear end, get two connections and a load balancing router.
You don't know what you're missing until you've tried this stunt out.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
2:55 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:54PM -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
I now have my load balancing router up and running on two modems, one
cable
modem and one DSL. So far, it seems to be doing what it's supposed to be
doing.
(For folks who remember my earlier questions regarding this matter, I did try
to order that Xincom router but after much fiddling about was eventually told
that it is out of stock. However, this Dlink DI-LB604 is supposed to do the
same thing. It was also $30 cheaper.)
I have a question about /etc/resolv.conf in relation to this setup.
Each of my two ISPs have two nameservers for customer use. For the sake of
demonstration, let's say that ISP A has nameserver 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 while
ISP B has nameservers 3.3.3.3 and 4.4.4.4
Now, the name of my internal network is melvilletheatre.net.
My /etc/resolv.conf from when I was using only one single ISP and a regular
(single WAN) router was as follows:
search melvilletheatre.net
nameserver 1.1.1.1
nameserver 2.2.2.2
When I set up this dual router, I changed /etc/resolv.conf to this:
search melvilletheatre.net
nameserver 1.1.1.1
nameserver 3.3.3.3
nameserver 2.2.2.2
nameserver 4.4.4.4
This seems to be working at the moment, but I know of at least one problem.
"man resolv.conf" tells me that there can be a maximum of three nameserver
entries so I assume that the 4.4.4.4 entry is being ignored.
My question is, is there a better way to set this up? In addition to load
balancing this router also does failover, so if one of my connections goes down
things are supposed to keep chugging along anyway using the other connection.
It seems like this would be another factor in properly
configuring /etc/resolv.conf because as it is now if ISP A drops then I think I
have only one working nameserver entry left in /etc/resolv.conf at that time.
Interesting, I have a load balancing router too (a Draytek Vigor
2820n) with a similar set up. WAN1 is the 2820n's own ADSL
connection, WAN2 is an ethernet connection to another ADSL router
which uses a different phone line.
I couldn't get load balancing to work initially and asked for help
from Draytek support, they advised that I needed to specify the
nameservers in the router. What they suggested was to put two
nameservers into the router, using your notation, nameserver 1.1.1.1 and
nameserver 3.3.3.3. Then, in addition, I had to set another option
that forced all traffic to 1.1.1.1 through WAN1 and all traffic to
3.3.3.3 through WAN2. It now works and I get load balancing between
the two ADSL connections.
I doubt it matters much what you put in /etc/resolv.conf after the
first two nameservers, if it's using the third something is probably
rather amiss anyway.
In fact I think the best way is probably to get the router to act as
your local nameserver (mine can do that though I haven't actually
tried to set it up this way yet). Then all PCs on the LAN just have
the router's IP as their name server and you can choose what
nameservers everyone uses by changing what the router uses.
--
Chris Green
10:32 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:55:18 +0100
Chris G <cl(a)isbd.net> wrote:
> I couldn't get load balancing to work initially and asked for help
> from Draytek support, they advised that I needed to specify the
> nameservers in the router. What they suggested was to put two
> nameservers into the router, using your notation, nameserver 1.1.1.1 and
> nameserver 3.3.3.3. Then, in addition, I had to set another option
> that forced all traffic to 1.1.1.1 through WAN1 and all traffic to
> 3.3.3.3 through WAN2. It now works and I get load balancing between
> the two ADSL connections.
After further experimenting, I too have discovered that this seems to work
best. In the "protocol and port binding" configuration screen, I directed
UDP
and TCP port 53 to WAN1 for 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, and WAN2 for 3.3.3.3 and
4.4.4.4
Now this outfit rattles right along. Before I did the above step (just an hour
or so ago) when you went to a new web page you had to wait a second before it
started to load. Now, that momentary wait seems to be gone. Click - boom.
Here's your web page. I think I was getting some kind of dns timeouts before
if I sent a dns request to a nameserver from the wrong IP address. DNS
requests, too, seem to alternate.
I logged into my webserver and watched the log file while I loaded my website
and found that things are indeed doing what they should. Every alternate
graphic (approximately) was downloaded by each IP address. graphic 1 by address
1, graphic 2 by address 2, graphic 3 by address 1 again, and so on.
Now I can see that things are definitely going faster than they were when I was
using just one Internet connection. In fact, it's damned impressive.
> I doubt it matters much what you put in /etc/resolv.conf after the
> first two nameservers, if it's using the third something is probably
> rather amiss anyway.
You're probably right. My current resolv.conf seems to be doing the job -- at
least, it's running a damn sight faster than it ever has before. If this is
broken, then I'd like to break a few more.
> In fact I think the best way is probably to get the router to act as
> your local nameserver (mine can do that though I haven't actually
> tried to set it up this way yet). Then all PCs on the LAN just have
> the router's IP as their name server and you can choose what
> nameservers everyone uses by changing what the router uses.
As far as I can tell, this router doesn't do that. At least, I haven't
discovered anything that suggests that it can, so far. There are a ton of
configuration screens here, though, so I could easily have missed it.
I wonder if there would be any benefit to running a caching nameserver on this
computer. What's the current "best way" to get one of those running on
Fedora
8? That's another thing that I've never tried and perhaps it's worth
giving
that a shot too while I'm at it.
Ultimately, if any of you folks reading this want to give your Internet access
a real kick in the rear end, get two connections and a load balancing router.
You don't know what you're missing until you've tried this stunt out.
You've already got me thinking but, I want it with wireless, though i
am not sure until I try. I wouldn't need to isp's though because I am
not even getting the max speed out of one ISP with a wireless
connection. I can have to NIC's in a box, can I have two wireless
cards with separate ip's pulling down the info so i could effectively
double my wireless connection speed? It seems plausible on the surface
anyway.
Max
6:13 p.m.
New subject: DI-LB604 load balancing router
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:03:31 -0600
Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
I called Dlink tech support and the guy there had never heard of such
a
problem. Ultimately, after trying several things (reduce MTU, disable and
physically unplug the second modem, move the modem from WAN1 to WAN2) he said
there's nothing that he can do to help me and I should return the router to
where I purchased it. He will pass the problem report along to the engineering
department.
For anyone who's interested in the continuing story of this load balancing
router, I phoned Dlink tech support again today. This time I was referred to
three different phone numbers before I got to talk to the right someone in
"business tech support". Odd -- when I called on Friday I got right through to
the right guy with the first call.
Ultimately, I got a "case number" and was told to fax that and a copy of the
invoice that I got from the computer store to a number that he gave me. They
apparently intend to do some sort of an exchange. I just sent the fax so we'll
see what happens now.
I told him that my preferred solution would be to get this router working --
after all, if I didn't want it I wouldn't have purchased it in the first place.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
10:19 a.m.
New subject: DI-LB604 load balancing router
Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:03:31 -0600
Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
> I use rsync to transfer files to my webserver. I completed the article and
> started uploading it and got about halfway through the graphics and blammo!
> The router locked up. After power-cycling the router I tried it again and it
> locked up again at the same point.
In light of the problem I detailed in my previous message, I will obviously be
revising this article after I figure out what I'm going to do next. However,
if anyone is interested in the article in its current form (what I wrote before
I found out that it can't scp a large file to my server), you can read it here:
http://www.melvilletheatre.com/articles/load-balanced-router/
You should be able to do it with firewall.
I had played around with firewall and it did appear to be possible, but you have
to figure out how you are going to split things, and then setup rules to do it.
You can easily split things by IP range/hostnames or by protocol, and possibly a
number of other things. I don't have the set of rules that I was using at the
time. If you do some searches and have a decent understanding of routing/NAT
you will probably be able to set it up.
Roger
11:34 p.m.
New subject: DI-LB604 load balancing router
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:03:31 -0600
Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
I use rsync to transfer files to my webserver. I completed the
article and
started uploading it and got about halfway through the graphics and blammo!
The router locked up. After power-cycling the router I tried it again and it
locked up again at the same point.
In light of the problem I detailed in my previous message, I will obviously be
revising this article after I figure out what I'm going to do next. However,
if anyone is interested in the article in its current form (what I wrote before
I found out that it can't scp a large file to my server), you can read it here:
http://www.melvilletheatre.com/articles/load-balanced-router/
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
11:30 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Chris G <cl(a)isbd.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32:26PM -0400, max bianco wrote:
> >
> > Ultimately, if any of you folks reading this want to give your Internet
access
> > a real kick in the rear end, get two connections and a load balancing
router.
> > You don't know what you're missing until you've tried this stunt
out.
> >
> >
> You've already got me thinking but, I want it with wireless, though i
> am not sure until I try. I wouldn't need to isp's though because I am
> not even getting the max speed out of one ISP with a wireless
> connection. I can have to NIC's in a box, can I have two wireless
> cards with separate ip's pulling down the info so i could effectively
> double my wireless connection speed? It seems plausible on the surface
> anyway.
>
Surely your connection to you ISP is *way* slower than even the
slowest wireless connection. Even an 11Mb/s wireless connection is
faster than all but the whizziest ISP connections. Are you *really*
getting slower than that on your wireless LAN?
Your right about that, except the connection at work is smokin but it
would still be useful for large transfers across the LAN,
music,movies, and such. Anyway I will start my own thread, as i am
getting off on a tangent and hijacking this one it seems.
Max
3:34 a.m.
Tim:
> I could imagine problems where you start off on a HTTP server and
get
> handed over to a HTTPS one. e.g. Shopping systems, where the browsing
> is ordinary HTTP, and the checkout is not.
Frank Cox:
And?
The items you selected might not get passed over. On some shopping
systems the checkout stage is just where you pay the bill accrued on the
non-secure site.
It'd depend on the handover method.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:36 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 05:38:54PM +0930, Tim wrote:
David Timms:
>> I had problems with certain {usually https} sites that you would log into,
>> then it would reject the next step in the process
Frank Cox:
> The fix for this problem is to direct TCP port 443 to WAN1 or WAN2. Your
> choice.
>
> Now everything that's a https connection will always go through only the
> connection you specified and the remote webserver won't get confused.
I could imagine problems where you start off on a HTTP server and get
handed over to a HTTPS one. e.g. Shopping systems, where the browsing
is ordinary HTTP, and the checkout is not.
I don't think that matters the "one IP" check only applies to the
https connection.
--
Chris Green
3:15 a.m.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:38:54 +0930
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I could imagine problems where you start off on a HTTP server and
get
handed over to a HTTPS one. e.g. Shopping systems, where the browsing
is ordinary HTTP, and the checkout is not.
And?
The "security check" wouldn't start until you're on the https site, so
it
shouldn't make any difference -- once you're on the https site everything runs
through one connection. If it is an issue (which I suspect would be very rare),
then you can always add that site to the list of IP addresses to direct to a
single WAN connection only.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
3:08 a.m.
David Timms:
> I had problems with certain {usually https} sites that you would
log into,
> then it would reject the next step in the process
Frank Cox:
The fix for this problem is to direct TCP port 443 to WAN1 or WAN2.
Your
choice.
Now everything that's a https connection will always go through only the
connection you specified and the remote webserver won't get confused.
I could imagine problems where you start off on a HTTP server and get
handed over to a HTTPS one. e.g. Shopping systems, where the browsing
is ordinary HTTP, and the checkout is not.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
2:25 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32:26PM -0400, max bianco wrote:
>
> Ultimately, if any of you folks reading this want to give your Internet access
> a real kick in the rear end, get two connections and a load balancing router.
> You don't know what you're missing until you've tried this stunt out.
>
>
You've already got me thinking but, I want it with wireless, though i
am not sure until I try. I wouldn't need to isp's though because I am
not even getting the max speed out of one ISP with a wireless
connection. I can have to NIC's in a box, can I have two wireless
cards with separate ip's pulling down the info so i could effectively
double my wireless connection speed? It seems plausible on the surface
anyway.
Surely your connection to you ISP is *way* slower than even the
slowest wireless connection. Even an 11Mb/s wireless connection is
faster than all but the whizziest ISP connections. Are you *really*
getting slower than that on your wireless LAN?
--
Chris Green
2:22 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:25PM +1000, David Timms wrote:
Frank Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:55:18 +0100
> Chris G <cl(a)isbd.net> wrote:
...
> I logged into my webserver and watched the log file while I loaded my website
> and found that things are indeed doing what they should. Every alternate
> graphic (approximately) was downloaded by each IP address. graphic 1 by address
> 1, graphic 2 by address 2, graphic 3 by address 1 again, and so on.
>
> Now I can see that things are definitely going faster than they were when I was
> using just one Internet connection. In fact, it's damned impressive.
...
I had this sort of setup as well {netscreen ssg20}; but I had problems with
certain {usually https} sites that you would log into, then it would reject
the next step in the process eg flight booking. The web site seems to look
at apparent ip for each ISP and decide that the second ip is trying to
spoof the connection {even though cookies, encryption all suggest
otherwise}. Sometimes you might get further, depending ransomly on whether
requests left via the same ISP.
Yes, some secure sites check that a 'session' is all from the same
IP. My Vigor 2820n router has a specific setup page fpr addressing
the problem where you can make certain protocols always use a specific
WAN connection. It mentions https as an example of where this may be
necessary.
--
Chris Green
11:53 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:16:25 +1000
David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> wrote:
I had problems
with certain {usually https} sites that you would log into, then it
would reject the next step in the process
The fix for this problem is to direct TCP port 443 to WAN1 or WAN2. Your
choice.
Now everything that's a https connection will always go through only the
connection you specified and the remote webserver won't get confused.
On this DI-LB604 router, that is set on the "protocol and port binding" screen.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
10:16 p.m.
Frank Cox wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:55:18 +0100
Chris G <cl(a)isbd.net> wrote:
...
I logged into my webserver and watched the log file while I loaded my
website
and found that things are indeed doing what they should. Every alternate
graphic (approximately) was downloaded by each IP address. graphic 1 by address
1, graphic 2 by address 2, graphic 3 by address 1 again, and so on.
Now I can see that things are definitely going faster than they were when I was
using just one Internet connection. In fact, it's damned impressive.
...
I had this sort of setup as well {netscreen ssg20}; but I had problems
with certain {usually https} sites that you would log into, then it
would reject the next step in the process eg flight booking. The web
site seems to look at apparent ip for each ISP and decide that the
second ip is trying to spoof the connection {even though cookies,
encryption all suggest otherwise}. Sometimes you might get further,
depending ransomly on whether requests left via the same ISP.
Have you had any trouble like that ?
DaveT.
8:03 p.m.
New subject: DI-LB604 load balancing router
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:36:54 -0600
Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
I now have my load balancing router up and running on two modems, one
cable
modem and one DSL. So far, it seems to be doing what it's supposed to be
doing.
Well, that was a short-lived joy.
I had this Dliink DI-LB604 up and running and it was working just great,
distributing the load between the two Internet services. In fact, it was
working so well that I wrote a how-to article about it that I intended to post
on my website., including some graphics of the various setup screens and the
like.
Ironically, that's when I got bit. Hard.
I use rsync to transfer files to my webserver. I completed the article and
started uploading it and got about halfway through the graphics and blammo!
The router locked up. After power-cycling the router I tried it again and it
locked up again at the same point.
Further experimentation showed that I can reliably lock up the router doing a
scp copy of a file over about 500k to any outside server. In fact, it reliably
craps out at the same point pretty much every time.
Oddly enough, it works great with everything else, including logging into a
remote system via ssh. In fact, it reliably works when I run a remote VNC
session over SSH. It's just a file copy from here to there that locks it up.
I called Dlink tech support and the guy there had never heard of such a
problem. Ultimately, after trying several things (reduce MTU, disable and
physically unplug the second modem, move the modem from WAN1 to WAN2) he said
there's nothing that he can do to help me and I should return the router to
where I purchased it. He will pass the problem report along to the engineering
department.
So.... any recommendations for a good load balancing router that I could get
instead of this one?
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
5871
days inactive
5875
days old
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Chris G -
Development discussions related to Fedora -
Frank Cox -
max -
Roger Heflin -
Tim