|
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> This is not a problem for LVS. We already discussed this. It
> seems the problem is in the router.
understand
> > Unless the CIP server has some kind of special load balancing feature, I
> > don't think it will allow 2 guys with different ATM addresses to
> > register
> > the same IP address.
>
> LVS does not rely on registering two ATM addresses for same
> IP address in the ARP server. We avoid this for Ethernet too. This
> is not the way LVS/DR is working. This is the reason we use
> conf/.../hidden.
>
> RFC1577 postualtes in 6.3 ATMARP Server Operational Requirements
> that the second request to be discarded. But we need the router not to
> restrict the packets to come from a specific IP derived from the VC.
what's the VC?
> I.e. we need the router to allow packets from RIP1 to come with
> saddr=VIP (spoofed source). I don't think there is any ARP problem
> here. The ATM implementation talks only for IP addresses configured
> on ATM devices. This is my understanding looking in the sources.
> If the VIP is not configured on ATM device on the real servers I
> _expect_ this VIP not to be reported to the ARP server from the
> real server.
>
> So, the problem is whether the router blocks packets coming
> from the real server with saddr=VIP which is different from the
> RIP (if associated with the VC). This must be checked. I don't see
> such restrictions in the Linux CIP implementation. Not sure for
> the other implementations. I can't believe such restriction exists.
I asked this question of my friend a while ago and have just got the reply
this morning.
I had forgotten your reply which came later. It's a spoof problem and not
an arp problem.
thanks Joe
--
Joseph Mack mack@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
