Re: ip route weight stupid question

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 05:34:50AM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:59:10PM +0300, Stuart Gall wrote: > > Does a higher weight mean that the route will be used more or used less ? > [snip] > > Furthermore, if you really want to do this, you probably also want to look

Re: ip route weight stupid question

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:59:10PM +0300, Stuart Gall wrote: > Does a higher weight mean that the route will be used more or used less ? Citation from Linkname: Re: Loadbalancing the gat: msg#00055 URL: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1Q2CWWmtUJAJ:osdir.com/ml/linux.network.routin

Re: ip route weight stupid question

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:59:10PM +0300, Stuart Gall wrote: > Hello, > SO I have scoured the internet, the man pages, groups. I just cant find > a definitive answer. > > > weight NUMBER - is a weight for this element of a multi- > path route reflecting its relative bandwidth or quality. >

Re: ip route

Hi, You may just forget my previous posting... (it was just an error in the script). BTW, if you have multipath default routes, how do you set the routing table so that the machine would automatically reroute the packets when one of the route is down? TIA, Oki