|
Just to add, this is what I tried which sounded logical to me, but well,
obviously wrong since it didn't work.
I setup the LVS machine to masq anything from 10.100.50.0/24
Chain forward (policy ACCEPT):
target prot opt source destination ports
MASQ all ------ 10.100.50.0/24 anywhere n/a
and on one of the real servers I did this:
ws1: root:~ 267>ip route
127.0.0.1 dev lo scope link
64.204.99.240 dev lo scope link src 64.204.99.240
64.204.99.0/24 dev eth0 scope link
10.100.50.0/24 via 64.204.99.249 dev eth0
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
default via 64.204.99.1 dev eth0
so I though by doing 10.100.50.0/24 via 64.204.99.249 dev eth0 it would
route traffic from 10.100.50.0/24 through 64.204.99.249.
but well, it's not working so...
Thanks
-jeremy
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Jeremy Hansen wrote:
>
> Ok. Here's a layout of basically how it setup
>
>
> internet
> |
> 64.204.99.1 (network providers router)
> |
> switch
> |
> real server 1 lvs machine real server 2
> RIP (10.100.50.247) RIP (64.204.99.249) RIP (10.100.50.246)
> lo:0 (64.204.99.240) VIP (64.204.99.240) lo:0 (64.204.99.240)
> default gw 64.204.99.1 default gw 64.204.99.1
> static arp entry static arp entry
> for the router, for the router,
> 64.204.99.1 64.204.99.1
>
> real server 3 (which is not to be load balanced)
> RIP (10.100.50.245)
>
> The problem is real server 1,2,3 cannot get to the internet which is a
> requirement. Basically because these machines don't really have a real ip
> address at all, so for them to get out, they need to be NAT's at some
> point.
>
> What I thought you be possible is to set up a route or some type of rule
> that says if traffic originates from 10.100.50.0/24, instead of using the
> default gw, 64.204.99.1, go through 64.204.99.249 and be masqeraded, but
> at thew same time if traffic originates from elsewhere and gets passed
> from the LVS machine's VIP, then use the default gw and use DR instead.
>
> So I could masq and use DR for important traffic all at the same time.
>
> I hope this clears things up. My original email was pretty misleading.
>
> Thanks
> -jeremy
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Joseph Mack wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Jeremy Hansen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have a situation where I'm using DR, but I need to NAT *some*
> > > traffic.
> > >
> > > I have the lvs server setup with real ip's, but all the real servers are
> > > using internal addresses. I'm using DR, so the real servers are actually
> > > using the real ip of my upstream providers router, I'm statically
> > > assigning the mac address of the router to the real servers.
> >
> > I don't understand the last two sentences. (I assume the router is the box
> > connecting your public network to the ISP). But lets put that aside for
> > the moment.
> >
> > The VIP is a routable IP, so clients on the internet can send packets to
> > the LVS. The real-servers will also have the VIP on them, so they can send
> > replies to the client. The RIPs on the real-servers and the network
> > connecting the director to the real-servers can be anything you like,
> > including non-routable IPs (ie 192.168.x.x).
> >
> > Can you explain your problem again saying why this framework won't work
> > in your case.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Mack mack@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
> eholes.org * jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------
> eholes have feelings too...
>
>
>
>
eholes.org * jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
eholes have feelings too...
|
