I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work if you can
get two named daemons running each with their own
named.conf file and their own listen-on address access lists.
(Does that really work? Can you see them on netstat -apn?).
LVS should just pass the packets up through the protocol stack
to the named daemons once it figures out it does not
need to route the packet out one of its NICs.
(You can't mess with the port numbers in the packets when
the destination is local, but your solution to use two VIPs
looks like it should work.)
I wonder what two named daemons on one machine buys you?
From: "Calibri Research" <calibri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Enhanced local-node?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:13:17 -0800
I was wondering if anyone may have a suggestion for
the project I am working on.
Here is the situation:
One machine running:
a) LinuxDirector (on 10.1.1.2 ip-alias)
b) named dns (listening on 10.1.1.3 ip-alias port 53)
c) second named dns (listening on 10.1.1.4 ip-alias port 53)
So basically I want to load balance between 2 DNS servers
running on the same machine with LinuxDirector.
Now DNS servers are not configured to listen on 10.1.1.2
interface (alias), where LinuxDirector is bound to (VIP).
The question is; can this be done? I know with local-node
feature enabled I can have (Vip) 10.1.1.2 -> (Rip) 10.1.1.3
but I was under impression that DNS that runs on 10.1.1.3
must also listen on 10.1.1.2 for the packets to be accepted
I am trying to minimize the setup to a single machine... with
VIPs and RIPs virtually assigned to the same physical hardware.
Your insight is very much appreciated!
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com