Hurricane Electric's IPv6 Tunnel Broker Forums

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Hurricane Electric's Tunnelbroker.net forums!

Author Topic: load balancing or static routing  (Read 4403 times)

elif

  • readonly_member
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
load balancing or static routing
« on: October 29, 2010, 03:38:32 AM »

ok i have two Internet connections. is it possible too have my ipv6 tunnel load balanced across two nics ? or if that not possible could i route all traffic across nic 1 except 2001:67c:174:101::5 and route this over nic 2? iv tried the ipv6 rtu command but it doesn't seem to work. thanks

ps i run XP
Logged

lukec

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • Home
Re: load balancing or static routing
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2010, 10:10:12 AM »

Two Internet connections and only one tunnel??
regards
lukec

Logged

eliff

  • readonly_member
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: load balancing or static routing
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2010, 10:44:29 AM »

i would prefer two connections and one tunnel, as i might use teredo. however if that doesnt work i wouldnt mind two tunnels.
Logged

broquea

  • Sr. Network Engineer, HE.NET AS6939
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1717
Re: load balancing or static routing
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2010, 11:22:22 AM »

If your NICs are bonded, and using a single upstream, yes. If not, no, because the IPv6 packets are destined for your IPv4 address, which if only exists on 1 NIC, has no business or desire to interact with the other NIC.

As for setting a static route pointing a specific block over an interface, make sure XP is at least on Service Pack 3, and start using netsh. The "ipv6" utility is way outclassed by netsh functionality.
Logged

jimb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • ^^^ Warped picture
Re: load balancing or static routing
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2010, 02:36:43 PM »

Only way I could think of doing something like this is running something like MLPPP over IP or something to make it look like a single logical interface.  But of course you'd need an IP assigned to that logical interface too as a target for the tunnel server.

I remember years ago thinking up a way for a friend to make use of his two cable modems as a single connection, but it required the use of a server somewhere on the net that had a fast connection to be used as a nexus point for his virtual interface, and essentially tunneling that traffic through IP via the two physical connections.  I can't remember what I came up with.  Either MLPPP or I vaguely remember something involving GRE.  I don't think he ever tried to implement it though.

Basically it was something that did IP-in-IP over two separate tunnels that would terminate on a server on the other side of the line (he knew someone at the ISP), and provide him w/ a virtual NIC that used both tunnels.  I just can't exactly remember the method I came up with for that.  :P
Logged

eliff

  • readonly_member
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: load balancing or static routing
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2010, 04:25:27 AM »

i was kind of hopping that i could route connection to XXXX:: via nic 1 and then conection to YYYYY:: via nic 2. so i would assume that would mean i would have two ipv6 tunnels.
Logged

jimb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • ^^^ Warped picture
Re: load balancing or static routing
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2010, 05:19:01 PM »

Sure, you could do that.  You'd have two different IPv6 ranges.  You could even announce both with RA and I think your hosts would configure both.

Now, which one it uses is a bit unknown to me.  I remember reading part of the idea of IPv6 is that you could have multiple prefixes on a machine.  And with policy routing, or with the ip addrlabel style (RFC 3484) style control, and/or application configuration, you could basically determine which source IPv6 an application uses based on a number of criteria.  Not sure of linux kernels or windows have any functionality to "load balance" across IPv6 sources though in any dynamic way.

Of course you could also divide the space among subnets/clients too.
Logged