multiple PPPoE connections on one machine (DSL load balancing)
nvass9573 at gmx.com
Thu May 7 13:13:17 UTC 2009
Jeff Croft wrote:
> Hello --
> I'm configuring FreeBSD 7.1 as a router/load-balancer and I just got
> stuck. I know this sounds like a newbie question, but hear me out.
> I have three DSL line (AT&T in SF Bay Area, business class) connected
> via ethernet to the box, and one more ethernet connected to an internal
> network. The idea is to do some clever kind of load-balancing and/or
> logging of DSL connections using pf.
> All three DSL lines are configured to use PPPoE. I can successfully
> bring any one of them up individually, but when I try to bring more than
> one up, using either ppp or mpd5, I get an error that looks like this
> (example from ppp):
> ppp : tun0: Warning: iface add: ioctl(SIOCAIFADDR, X.X.X.X -> D.D.D.D
> ): File exists
> and then the 2nd link goes down. mpd5 says the same thing, but the error
> is slightly different. For all three point-to-point links the remote
> side of the point to point (D.D.D.D) is always the same IP address, so
> naturally it doesn't want to add multiple routing table entries which
> point to the same destination.
> The vendor claims to be unable to change the value of D.D.D.D because
> "everyone in your region has the same remote address." They also don't
> support mlppp, so multilink is out.
Did you try multilink PPP? they might not support, but it may work
> Also, I would like easy, real-time, programmatic access to the IP
> address of each individual DSL line.
> So far, I've thought of the following workarounds:
> 1. Use cheap linksys boxen to hang off each DSL line so the FreeBSD
> network stack doesn't have to do the PPPoE. I'm concerned that they'll
> be able to handle the volume of individual connections I'm planning on,
> even with the firmware replaced with something decent. Plus it's three
> extra devices on my network!
> 2. Use network virtualization such as this. I don't have any experience
> with it, but I'm guessing it would do everything I want.
> Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this problem more elegantly?
Not elegantly, but you can change the remote peer address to something
else. That is:
1) Bring up tun0, you get from IPCP 184.108.40.206 -> 220.127.116.11
ifconfig tun0 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124
2) Bring up tun1, you get 126.96.36.199 -> 188.8.131.52
ifconfig tun1 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11
3) Bring up tun2, you get 18.104.22.168 -> 22.214.171.124
The result will be:
tun0 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52
tun1 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11
tun2 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124
You'll need to write a custom script, to modify
the addresses, I think both ppp and mpd can do that.
Are you going to use pf's route-to to forward packets
to all three interfaces? Since, the above hack doesn't
"solve" the next hop problem. You can only have one
next hop for each destination. On -CURRENT there is
support for ECMP, which may be a complete and correct
solution for this problem.
More information about the freebsd-questions