LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: The new HOWTO confused me...VS-TUN, 2.2.x and the ARP problem

To: Joseph Mack <mack@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The new HOWTO confused me...VS-TUN, 2.2.x and the ARP problem
Cc: Nick Christopher <nwc@xxxxxxx>, lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:35:05 +0200 (EET)
        In fact, the documentation is incorrect. There is no difference,
all devices are reported in the ARP replies: lo, tunl and dummy. So, only
the ARP patch can solve the problem. This can be tested using this
configuration with any device (before the patch applied):

Host A:
        eth:x 192.168.0.1

Host B:
        eth:x 192.168.0.2
        lo, dummy, tunl: 192.168.0.3


On host A try: ping 192.168.0.3

        Host B replies for 192.168.0.3 through 192.168.0.2 device

        So, the ARP problem means: "All local interfaces are reported"
until the ARP patch is used. In fact, all ARP patches which use IFF_NOARP
to hide the interface are incorrect. I don't expect them in the kernel.

Regards,

Julian Anastasov

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Joseph Mack wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Nick Christopher wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 60 pages ... more of a novel then a HOWTO!
> > 
> > Okay so I am confused on the ARP problem....
> > 
> > My setup:
> >     All machines, director and realservers have 2.2.13 kernels.
> >     I am using VS-TUN on the director.
> >     All machines on the same segment.
> >     All machines have a single NIC.
> > 
> > My question:
> >     How, *concisely*, do I *most simply* avoid the ARP problem?
> 
> from where you are
> 
> 1. guaranteed to work
> 
> put the arp patch on the realservers and recompile the kernel
> 
> 
> 2. possibly works (it either does or doesn't and I didn't write the result
> down)
> 
>    use the dummy0 device instead of the tunl0 device on the realservers
> 
> 
> > 
> > My Observations to date:
> > BH (Before HOWTO) I had ipvs patched kernels on the realservers and was
> > using device tunl0 (which ifconfig said was NOARP) and that seemed to
> > work.  And the arp -a said the right thing but....
> > 
> > AH (After HOWTO) I tried device dummy0 rather than tunl0 on same boxes
> > and everything again seemed to work.
> > 
> > AH I tried device dummy0 on a 2.2.13 box without the ipvs patch and it
> > just plain didn't answer...though I'm not sure ip tunneling is on in
> > that kernel.
> 
> you need to check that tunneling is on first
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>