|
Horms wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 07:48:51PM -0600, Dan Trainor wrote:
[snip]
Real servers need to have a default gateway, ... etc
So for whatever interface they use for communicating on the Internet,
they use that same interface to talk with the director? If the
realservers need to communicate over the Internet, they need some more
information than a single IP address that will never marry a MAC
address. For LVS-DR, it is necessary to have 2+ physical interfaces?
No it is not neccessary, though it is possible.
I'm not really sure that I understand where the confusion is.
Then your network should look like this.
[ Router ]
|
+-----+------+
| |
[ Linux Director ] [ Real Server ]
You probably want both the linux-director and the real-server to
use the router as their default gateway. Packets for the VIP will
go to the linux-director, then the real-server. It will process them
and send any replies to the end-user directly. If the end-user is
on a differen't network, it will be via the router.
If the end-user is on the same network, it will just send them straight
across the LAN. Actually, if the end-user is on the same network as the
linux-director and real-server, you don't need a router at all.
Just make sure, as I think you have, that the real-server doesn't
advertise the VIP over ARP, but is able to accept packets addressed
to the VIP that arrive.
[snip]
Thanks for the info, Horms.
I think that my confusion lies on what the ideal way to manage
interfaces that do not broadcast ARP, is. It made sense to me to have
two interfaces; this way I could limit which one broadcasted ARP, and
which did not. Sure, "The ARP Problem" sounds like a big problem. But
what is the preferred way of dealing with it, if not for two physical
interfaces, on two different physical network segments?
Before anyone tells me to go RTFM again, I'll remind you, that there
were several methods listed, all of which make sense. My question is,
which method is preferred, and possibly, why?
As awlays, I appreciate your time. Thanks!
-dant
|
