|
A follow up on this.
Output from ipvsadm:
IP Virtual Server version 1.0.4 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP xx.xxx.191.6:80 lblc persistent 10
-> xx.xxx.191.200:80 Route 1 0 0
TCP xx.xxx.191.4:80 lblc persistent 360
-> xx.xxx.191.200:80 Route 1 0 0
TCP xx.xxx.191.5:80 lblc persistent 360
-> xx.xxx.190.60:80 Route 1 0 0
TCP xx.xxx.191.5:443 wlc persistent 600
-> xx.xxx.190.60:443 Route 1 0 0
When I go to the xx.xxx.191.5(LVS VIP) I get no response. We run a
packet sniffer on the Realserver and the traffic does not seem to reach
the xx.xxx.190.60(Windows Box). Where should I look to figure out how
to route to the different class c. Should be looking at the LVS, the
Windows Box or should I look at the router? I am at a loss as to where
to begin to diagnose the problem.
AJ
-----Original Message-----
From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AJ Lemke
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:48 AM
To: 'LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.'
Subject: RE: LVS and Different Class C's
Could you elaborate a little more on this?
If my Directors are xx.xx.191.2 and xx.xx.191.3 respectively, with VIP
xx.xx.191.4, xx.xx.191.5 xx.xx.191.6. Both are using the 255.255.255.0
subnetmask on their DIP and VIP. Now my Realserver(IIS) is on
xx.xx.190.60 with a 255.255.255.0 subnetmask. There is a Cisco router
in between the Director and IIS box. When we do a arp -a on the IIS box
we get a TYPE invalid for the Directors.
Any Idea?
AJ
-----Original Message-----
From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Horms
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:59 PM
To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
Subject: Re: LVS and Different Class C's
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:00:06PM -0600, AJ Lemke wrote:
> Hello all.
Hi AJ,
To reiterate Peter Mueller's request, please only send plain-text email
to this list.
> Can the LVS-DR direct traffic across class C's?
>
> Here is the scenario, I have 2 director boxes and they direct traffic
> to my squid boxes. The squid boxes are in the acceleration mode. The
> whole system works great. The problem I have is that a client wants
> to have his website cached out. That is all well and good his site is
> cached out just fine, but he has some ssl stuff that won't cache. We
> have this in mind. His site resolves to VIP xxx.xxx.191.5. We would
> just send the http:80 traffic to xxx.xxx.191.200, this is the cache
> server and the https:443 to xxx.xxx.190.60, is is the actual IIS
> server that the site resides on.
Yes, this is possible. If your linux directors are directly connected to
xxx.xxx.191.0/24 then NAT and Direct Routing should both work fine.
Otherwise you may need to use Tunnelling.
--
Horms
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|
