Test with ECMP on Linux

I was reading an article about ECMP (Equal Cost Multipath) for traffic load sharing, and it brought back memories of my previous traffic engineering tests. It seems simple at first glance, but it’s actually more complex—especially when it comes to policy-based routing.

The challenge lies in determining traffic redirection and sharing in a session-wise connection, whether with or without NAT, across multiple links or circuits with different latencies. There’s also the complication of firewall interception with asymmetric return traffic. These factors make achieving ideal traffic load sharing quite difficult.

Of course, if tunneling is involved, things get simpler. It essentially blinds both endpoints and allows you to add two routes with the same metric in overlay routing. However, it doesn’t clearly explain why load-sharing performance behaves the way it does.

What about service enhancement? If the primary link becomes congested, should the secondary link pick up some of the traffic? That’s not exactly round-robin behavior—it would require active measurement and monitoring of the links. Maintaining session flow on the primary link while redirecting new flows to the secondary link sounds ideal, but it’s difficult to implement. For MPLS-TE, that’s straightforward—but what if you have two internet links, like one DIA (Direct Internet Access) and one mobile network? How would you handle that?

Well, just for fun, I haven’t done any serious measurements yet. But after setting up load sharing on my node, it seems to be working—though I haven’t really thought through the next steps. Running a Speedtest shows that the flows (by ports) are transmitting separately. Hmm… not ideal, but not bad either. But what about other applications? If they’re using two different IP addresses for outgoing traffic—ahhhh…

Let’s discuss this, bro.


Enable 2 Multipath load sharing
sudo ip route add default scope global \
nexthop via 192.168.X.X dev XXX weight 1 \
nexthop via 192.168.X.X dev XXX weight 1

For multipath routing, disabling connection tracking for locally-generated traffic helps
sudo sysctl -w net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_tcp_loose=0

Enable Layer 4 Hashing
sudo sysctl -w net.ipv4.fib_multipath_hash_policy=1

Enable IP Forwarding
sudo sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1

Force More Aggressive Flow-Based Balancing:
Set rp_filter to 0 (disable reverse path filtering) so the kernel won’t drop asymmetric traffic

sudo sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter=0

Flush all route cache
sudo ip route flush cache

#ECMP #Linux #Internet #Routing #IP #Firewall #Tunneling #MPLS #trafficEngineering #ChatGPT

Looking glass function provided by RIPE Atlas?

I performed some traceroute tests using the public looking glass of another organization/provider. I found that some test functions, like Ping and Traceroute, were launched using RIPE Atlas probes. It looks impressive and kind of funny.

In the previous year, the provider developed a web interface and API to launch commands from their own PE (Provider Edge) or Internet BG (Border Gateway) routers and return the results. The geographical router list allows users to select region-based tests.

This seems to be a new method using RIPE Atlas, where queries can be made via an API. The web interface lets users select which probe to use for the measurement, deducting the web provider’s “RIPE Atlas Credits” for each test.

However, I’m wondering — since looking glass aims to provide insights into a specific network provider’s or AS owner’s network — if we’re using this method, why not just go to the official RIPE Atlas website to launch the test?

Well, I guess the more user-friendly web portal makes it easier for users.

Pingnetbox – http://www.pingnetbox.com

#ripe #atlas #lookingglass #measurement #ping #traceroute #test #internet #AS #chatgpt #proofreading