|
Hi
On 28/11/2006 16:29, gert.vanoverloop wrote:
i tried a new configuration : see below
i send this to the keepalived mailing list but no answer yet.
It hasn't reached the list yet, that's why. The last message in this
thread on the keepalived list was from me. If you're not a subscriber,
your list may have been trapped my the moderation engine.
for my thesis i am testing keepalived/vrrp to failover two lans
OK.
see keepalived.conf below. (newer config than my first mail)
OK, got it. (Please trim and don't top-post however)
i'm having problems with pinging to other lan. as a test : i want to
use two ethernet links between two lans with two linux routers
in between using keepalived/vrrp for redundancy.
OK.
i want to test this between two lans to failover voip.
OK.
the failover works fine. the problem is: i can ping from one lan to the
interfaces in the router. but i can't ping it from the other lan. and i
cannot ping through the loadbalancer to other lan. when i look into my
arp table on a host pc i get the phisical mac address instead of a
virtual mac address. is this normal? the two lan and routers are all
in the same subnet. hope you can help me.
You have two physical LANs joined by your Linux routers running keepalived.
Sadly, you have only one logical network - all your machines live in the
same /24 netblock but are physically separated from each other by the
routers. Trying to ping from a PC on LAN1 to a PC on LAN2 won't work,
because they're in the same broadcast subnet. You'd need a bridge, not a
router, to join the two together.
You must put 192.168.1.0/24 on one side (eth0), and 192.168.2.0/24 on
the other (eth1).
There may be more insidious, tricky ways to achieve but the easiest
thing is to understand that a router routes between *different* subnets.
With these machines having the same subnet on two physically separated
wires, your results will be unpredictable (at best) or fail completely
(at worst) - which interface should the router ARP from? One, the other,
or both?
Graeme
|
