- 1. Re: [lvs-users] LVS-DR + 2 pools in 2 networks = hair pulling (score: 1)
- Author: tom <tg01@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:55:47 +1000
- Re, Spot on! This was the issue. I set up rp_filter (I didn't know this parameter before your answer) to be 'loose'. Indeed in my case the packet was silently dropped because a packet coming from 123
- /html/lvs-users/2012-04/msg00020.html (9,804 bytes)
- 2. Re: [lvs-users] LVS-DR + 2 pools in 2 networks = hair pulling (score: 1)
- Author: David Coulson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 07:02:44 -0400
- The tcpdump below indicates a packet going to the 10.1.1 network, not the packet from 123.2.2, at least from an Ethernet perspective. You should be able to have tcpdump log src/dst MAC addresses also
- /html/lvs-users/2012-04/msg00019.html (14,873 bytes)
- 3. [lvs-users] LVS-DR + 2 pools in 2 networks = hair pulling (score: 1)
- Author: Thomas <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:49:49 +1000
- Hey guys, I would like to have to following flow with A and B being two different networks (one public and one private range) on the same load balancer. InternetClient-->VIPA-->RIPA1orRIPA2-->VIPB-->
- /html/lvs-users/2012-04/msg00018.html (12,172 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu