Re: When the director is the client.

[Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>]

        Hello,

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Joshua Goodall wrote:

> I hadn't read it. I read it and wasn't convinced, so I tried this patch 
> (2.4.26):

        Hm, then I assume you really tried it.

> diff -u -p -r1.1.1.1 ip_vs_core.c
> --- ip_vs_core.c      19 Apr 2004 04:54:41 -0000      1.1.1.1
> +++ ip_vs_core.c      11 May 2004 13:03:34 -0000
> @@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@ static unsigned int ip_vs_in(unsigned in
>        *      Big tappo: only PACKET_HOST (nor loopback neither mcasts)
>        *      ... don't know why 1st test DOES NOT include 2nd (?)
>        */
> -     if (skb->pkt_type != PACKET_HOST || skb->dev == &loopback_dev) {
> +     if (skb->pkt_type != PACKET_HOST) {
>               IP_VS_DBG(12, "packet type=%d proto=%d daddr=%d.%d.%d.%d 
> ignored\n",
>                         skb->pkt_type,
>                         iph->protocol,

        So, now you can send packets in form DIP->VIP to real
servers (DR method)? I'm wondering how your patched director accepts
packets from real server in the form VIP->DIP. Linux has source
address validation and you can not disable it for packets with
saddr=local_ip

> ip rule add prio 100 fwmark 2 table 100
> ip route add local 0/0 dev lo table 100
>
> and now my fwmark-based LVS-DR director does the job for clients and for
> itself.  To make LVS-NAT work, we'd also need to be able to choose the
> masqueraded source address, which would be a much longer diff.  I
> didn't try LVS-Tun, but that would probably be workable like LVS-DR.

        I see that you can remove the limitation when sending
packets but how do you accept the replies? May be you do not have
the VIP configured as IP address?

> Regards
> joshua.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>