Hi There, the bigger the weight relative to the other gateway the more likely it is chosen a weight of 1 and 100 will mean the 100 choice is 100x more likely in theory. If either gateway is down the other is routed automatically, I have two 8 meg SDSL lines at home and balance them in this way.... P. Indunil Jayasooriya wrote: > HI Peter, > > Interesting in deed. You say that You can add a second route and > weight it as follows: > > ip route add equalize *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often > malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> scope global > nexthop via > *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:* > 192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254/> dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via > *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:* > 192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250/> dev eth0 weight 1 > > I want to know whether I can use the above command , when the below > command exists . > > ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often > malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> via *MailScanner > warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.254 > <http://192.168.0.254/> > > Then I want to know about your second answer which is "To achieve the > goal of primary path only, you can heavily weight one path over the > other, some traffic will still spill into the other, you > can remove the equalize parameter to disable this behaviour " > > herein, what is this "you can heavily weight one path over the other" > > When weight 1 and weight 1 , Both paths are equal. If I use weight 1 > and weight 100 , what would be the primary path ? Is it weight 1 ? > > Is it the lower number which becomes primary ? > > Then , in my case, is the following coomad is right? > > ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often > malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> scope global > nexthop via > *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:* > 192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254/> dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via > *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:* > 192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250/> dev eth0 weight 100 > > I guess with the above command that traffc will flow via primary, when > it fails , traffic will flow via secondary. > > That is what I need. > > Am I right ? Then can I acheive this goal ? > > Thanks > Indunil > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Aleksandar Milivojevic* <alex at milivojevic.org > <mailto:alex at milivojevic.org>> > Date: Dec 30, 2006 3:37 AM > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. > To: centos at centos.org <mailto:centos at centos.org> > > Quoting Indunil Jayasooriya < indunil75 at gmail.com > <mailto:indunil75 at gmail.com>>: > > > Hi , > > > > I have a network to reach which is *MailScanner warning: numerical > links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24>. It > is a branch of the > > company. I have currently added a route to that network via one > gateway ( > > *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:* > 192.168.0.254 <http://192.168.0.254>) in following way. > > > > ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often > malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> via *MailScanner > warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.254 > <http://192.168.0.254> > > > > Now, We got another gateway which is *MailScanner warning: numerical > links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250>. Now > I want to add a > > route to the same network which is *MailScanner warning: numerical > links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 <http://192.168.2.0/24> via > this gateway > > (*MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:* > 192.168.0.250 <http://192.168.0.250>) > > as well. > > > > Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be > primary and > > the other path should be backup. everything should go via primary > path. > > > > if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active. > > > > That is the purpose of doing this. > > > > Pls let me know whether it is possible or not? > > > > if possible, How can I achieve this goal. > > One possible solution is to enable one of the routing protocols on > your routers, instead of using static routing. For example BGP or > OSPF. The routers will than discover which paths to every of the > networks you have exist and will dynamically change routing rules > (instead of using static set of rules) as the network connections go > up and down. In the way you requested in your question. It might be > an overkill for simple network. But if your network becomes more > complex in the future, you'll have infrastructure to handle it. > Another advantage of using standard routing protocol is that they tend > to be platform independent. You want to replace that Cisco router > with Linux router or Linux router with Cisco router. Guess what, you > can use BGP or OSPF on both Linux and Cisco based router and your > configuration is not specific to single type of router anymore. > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org <mailto:CentOS at centos.org> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > -- > Thank you > Indunil Jayasooriya > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by the *Enhancion* <http://www.enhancion.net/> > system scanner, > and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Enhancion system Scanner and is believed to be clean. http://www.enhancion.net