Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+LVS\s+Direct\s+Routing\s+Virtualized\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+LVS\s+Direct\s+Routing\s+Virtualized\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] LVS Direct Routing Virtualized (score: 1): Author: Andrew Lau <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:09:43 +1000; I ended up skipping the NAT and assigning it a /32 address instead, and that's solved my issue on routing and wasted address space. Thanks again for your help. Cheers ________________________________; /html/lvs-users/2013-09/msg00010.html (14,064 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] LVS Direct Routing Virtualized (score: 1): Author: Andrew Lau <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:16:07 +1000; Yup, that's the scenario. My suspicions were correct though, when the LVS and realserver are on the same KVM node the transmissions go through without an issue. But on separate KVM nodes (same networ; /html/lvs-users/2013-09/msg00009.html (13,090 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] LVS Direct Routing Virtualized (score: 1): Author: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:09:20 +0200; I wonder who does the three way handshake and the data excange then, all with correct sequence numbers... Make a packet trace on the client. 10.0.3.152 is the DNAT target address for your real VIP, r; /html/lvs-users/2013-09/msg00008.html (11,085 bytes)
4. Re: [lvs-users] LVS Direct Routing Virtualized (score: 1): Author: Andrew Lau <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 22:19:11 +1000; That's what it definitely looked like, the router packet scan even showed the packets flowing from the VM however the client is not getting the end result. Just timing out. Could it be because I'm ru; /html/lvs-users/2013-09/msg00007.html (14,378 bytes)
5. Re: [lvs-users] LVS Direct Routing Virtualized (score: 1): Author: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:57:48 +0200; The client certainly gets the traffic, these seem like normal TCP session startups to me, with both ends actively involved. -- Regards, Feri. _______________________________________________ Please re; /html/lvs-users/2013-09/msg00006.html (13,271 bytes)
6. [lvs-users] LVS Direct Routing Virtualized (score: 1): Author: Andrew Lau <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:55:19 +1000; Hi, I have my LVS DR routing setup on a KVM nodes, from a single node it works great. However when I spread the load across multiple KVM nodes, the connections still hit the real server however nothi; /html/lvs-users/2013-09/msg00005.html (11,564 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]