Anyone setup multihomed networking on WinXP?

[AtW]

192.168.7.xx is an IP assigned by the SMC Barricade router which in turn is connected to 80.33.22.xx external connection.

The issue IMO is clear here - target computer gets 2 packets from source IPs that are 82.35.224.xx or 80.33.22.xx and it does not know which interface to send them to, so it sends to default one, so one of the cards won't work: I think this is exactly what you saying.

I can't give same metric because my SKA server does smart software balancing on lines.

It all worked before when I used Linux router that worked with one physical connection and the other one was directly into server - now I understand that it must have been doing NAT thing by hiding source IP so that routing would work.

What I need is a NAT thingy that would replace source IP to NAT itself and then do another remap when it gets response: I don't understand why my SMC Barricade does not do it - the source IP there is external, not router's. I blame Chico's boss for inefficient networking protocol design

[NoddY]

What is the nature of the traffic? If, for example, the majority of traffic on one subnet is HTTP, then you can place an application level proxy onto that subnet. It will rewrite the SRC IP and then you can get the multihomed machine to make routing decisions based on that, ensuring packets go out the same WAN interface they came in.

[AtW]

2 cards on which data will come from the Internet will work on port 80, which will be mixed HTTP and binary SKA protocol. What application level proxy can you recommend? I am trying to make NAT32 work right now. All that networking is way too complicated when you get into non-standard (more than 1 card) situation

[NoddY]

2 cards on which data will come from the Internet will work on port 80, which will be mixed HTTP and binary SKA protocol. What application level proxy can you recommend? I am trying to make NAT32 work right now. All that networking is way too complicated when you get into non-standard (more than 1 card) situation

This looks lightweight:

http://quietsche-entchen.de/cgi-bin/...oxies/TcpProxy

[AtW]

It is Unix geared, I tried to compile with cygwin but it lacks wait.h - typical for those Unix distributions always make assumptions on what will be present.

[VectraMan]

If the intention is to load balance, is there not a better way? I seem to remember years ago looking at a router that would connect to two regular run of the mill broadband connections (i.e. with different external IPs) and then NAT that onto your network. In that case the router would keep track of which connection came via which interface, which is exactly what you need.

I think that NAT approach will work for incoming, but if you ever have outgoing connections they're always going to take the default route.

[NoddY]

If the intention is to load balance, is there not a better way? I seem to remember years ago looking at a router that would connect to two regular run of the mill broadband connections (i.e. with different external IPs) and then NAT that onto your network. In that case the router would keep track of which connection came via which interface, which is exactly what you need.

I think that NAT approach will work for incoming, but if you ever have outgoing connections they're always going to take the default route.

pfsense is the way to go with multiple WANs:

http://www.pfsense.com/index.php?id=36

Requires a dedicated machine, but can potentially replace two NAT routers; and allow all machines on your LAN to benefit from the extra bandwidth.

[AtW]

I have dynamic software load balancing and I don't want any other load balancers because they won't do the job as good as I want to. Also my config worked before so I just want to repeat it.

The server expects incoming connections, so as long as response to these connections gets routed correctly (and it does not now because there can be only one default gateway for Internet addresses as they can't be subnetted) I a happy.

Noddy: this pf thing seems to be for linux only, I am using Windows. The whole point is to avoid using separate box which I do have (previously used Linux router with which all worked fine), but I really don't want to unless it is totally necessary.

Whoever designed crappy routing protocol for internet should be spanked very hard - why they never think of complex configs like multiple NICs? Just wtf can't response to already initiated request be routed via same interface on which it was received, ffs, this is so obvious it makes my blood boil!

[snaw]

I have dynamic software load balancing and I don't want any other load balancers because they won't do the job as good as I want to. Also my config worked before so I just want to repeat it.

The server expects incoming connections, so as long as response to these connections gets routed correctly (and it does not now because there can be only one default gateway for Internet addresses as they can't be subnetted) I a happy.

Noddy: this pf thing seems to be for linux only, I am using Windows. The whole point is to avoid using separate box which I do have (previously used Linux router with which all worked fine), but I really don't want to unless it is totally necessary.

Whoever designed crappy routing protocol for internet should be spanked very hard - why they never think of complex configs like multiple NICs? Just wtf can't response to already initiated request be routed via same interface on which it was received, ffs, this is so obvious it makes my blood boil!

Complex configs are fine on the internet, if you were talking BGP or had better internal infrastructure (ie. money). You're trying to do it on the cheap so it get's hard.

Easiest solution is to get a NAT router/firewall and sit it in between your external and your internal devices. NAT from outside to inside - this will mean that the NAT firewall records the conversations and passes traffic back out the interface it recieved it on - something like a PIX 515E off ebay should do the trick, or any firewall of your choice - might prefer the gui on a netscreen or checkpoint, should all do the trick.

Your inside to outside initiated traffic won't load balance probably but doesn't seem like that's a major conern.

Also before we shoot off too far down this road - you've checked each connection on it's own with the other off to verify they're working properly?

[AtW]

I've got supposedly NAT router - SMC Barricade 7008BR, but it is only NAT from outside, how do I know which routers are proper full NAT including from inside - this seems to be the solution that I need.

I've checked all connections and know they work fine - I have "test environment" in form of a laptop with 2 cards - network + WiFi, when I remove one all works, but with two it won't (unless I setup both default gateways but I can't do that on production box), the issue here is that the Source IP from which requests comes via my router is WAN IP, thus on a machine with 2 such interfaces the damn thing won't know that it should route via same interface - it will stick to single default gateway for WAN addresses.

The load balancing is controlled by my server (it knows how much goes through each line and instructs clients to connect to one or the other line, so this is sorted - in effect I don't want any other load balancing as mine works fine).

I am going to try NAT32 again, maybe made a mistake, then pull old PC/Linux router with which it all worked (it must be fully NATting it), but I would prefer to buy small hardware router that I know would work - so any names would be great, but please no CISCO stuff, I ain't millionaire yet!