|
At 21:29 99-1-1 +0100, Peter Ke{e wrote:
>
>Hi!
>
>Is it possible in some way to use the router computer in both ways:
>as a router and as a server. What I want is to set up a two node
>virtual server using only two computers.
>
>I was playing arround with the following tunneling router
>configuration (one computer only: router and server):
>
>ROUTER CONFIGURATION: IP=192.168.1.55, Virtual IP=192.168.1.10
> # configure the router
> echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> ifconfig eth0:0 192.168.1.10 arp up
>
> # add a VS tunneling device to the router itself
> modprobe new_tunnel.o
> modprobe ipip.o
> ifconfig tunl0 192.168.1.10 up
>
> # and add the router computer to the server list
> ippfvsadm -A -t 192.168.1.10:23 -R 192.168.1.55 (or 127.0.0.1 or
>something)
>
>Well, it didn't work. When I try to telnet to 192.168.1.10, the computer
>simply freezes. Ok, ok, I know, I am pushing it too hard, but still,
>I wonder if the idea is totaly and utterly wrong in the first place
>(shame on me) or is it worth of some further investigation? Would it be
>possible to patch the virtual server in some a way to enable such
>a (weird ;) configuration?
It seems that you want to make the load balancer and the service daemon run
on the same node. I don't think it can work with the current patch.
However, this function can be extended to build distributed servers with
load balancing, for example, a server will be busy to handle requests, then
it can forward requests to other less idler server; and so do other
servers. I wanted to implement this function before, but I
For the configuration above, the packet handling is as follows:
Device Dest:port
incoming packet eth0:0 192.168.1.10:23
routing it on the ip level
encapsulating lo 127.0.0.1:23
decapsulating tunl0 192.168.1.10:23
routing it on the ip level
repeated as above. The packet will be droped due to the TTL number
finally.
No connection can be established.
>
>Is it possible to set up such a configuration by using masquerading server
>instead of the tunneling one? I only decided to try tunneling, because I
>thought it was more prommissing.
No, it is not possible to do with the current patch. It needs coding, for
example, in the ip level, it can make the node handle requests locally or,
encapsulate the requests and forward them to other servers.
>
>With the masquearading server, it seems impossible to send the locally
>generated ip packets from eth0:2 (or something) back to masquerading
>section again. In normal VS servers, this is possible by setting the
>default gateway back to the VS router, but in single computer
>router/server configuration there is no point setting the default
>gateway to the local IP address?!
>
>Cheers,
> Peter
>
Have a good day,
Wensong
|
