|
My test cluster works fine on the local subnet - the trouble is when you
connect from a different subnet, and the ATM gets involved in the routing.
> You have to try LVS/DR with hiding the devices in
> the real servers:
I have two NIC's in each real-server. One is allocated the VIP, NOT
connected to any network, and hidden to ensure that there is no way that it
answers arp requests.
> You can't have two hosts that send ARP replies for
> one VIP. This is true not only for ATM LIS but also for the
> Ethernet.
The problem is not with ARP replies but when the real-servers send packets
back to the client which is trying to connect to the cluster. The
real-server sends out packets that claim to be from the VIP but they come
from a different MAC address to that of the director.
So, because the ATM sees the ARP replies from the director, it assigns the
MAC address of the director to the VIP. When the real-servers send out
packets preporting to be from the VIP the ATM looks at the packets and finds
a different MAC address. The ATM routing software then just refuses to route
the packets.
> This is mandatory! Please, report your results with the
> hidden flag, you are the first who plays with ATM on this list :)
>
Having contact the ATM manufactures (via another member of staff who deals
with ATM maintenance and control) they say that because of the way their IP
over ATM routers work, there is no way to get the required functionality.
doh!
|
