|
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008, Amos Shapira wrote:
>
>> 2.2. second secer (crivens) is on 192.168.0.64/28 has address 192.168.0.68
>> 4. I picked 192.168.0.82 as a virtual IP that I'd like to serve from
>> both servers.
>
> are you using LVS-NAT. If so look up "one network LVS-NAT"
No, I'm trying to use LVS-DR.
Would LVS-NAT overcome such a problem?
Are the two different subnets a problem at all for any LVS configuration?
>
>> I'm still working through the "Waht if there is a problem" section in
>> the mini-HOWTO but just wanted to ask a quick question -
>> Since one of the servers is on 192.168.0.64/28 I though that maybe I
>> need to assign it an address on the same network as the VIP, so I
>> assigned it 192.168.0.85 (mentioned in point 3 above).
>
> don't need this
Is this answer correct only for LVS-NAT or is it also for LVS-DR?
>
>> I did this using eth0:0:
>
> I don't know if UM is compatible with ethernet aliases
Is it compatible with "multiple ip's on single NIC" (whatever is the
correct term for this)? I read somewhere in the docs that "ehternet
aliases are a relic from the past" (in quote from Horms) and that
NIC's today can be assigned multiple addresses without actually
defining aliases (and got the impression from "man ip" that the ":nnn"
notation is kept just for backward compatibility). But I couldn't find
a pointer to what exactly replaces them - "ip" command? iproute2 that
you mention below?
>
>> I'm still trying to go through the docs but was wondering if the
>> aliasing of eth0:0 could be the problem and if so then what's the
>> proper way to solve this?
>
> iproute2 tools
Thanks. Will dig around this.
In the meantime I asked ThePlanet whether they can just combine the
two /28 networks into one /27 since they are consecutive (.64 and
.80), maybe that will alleviate that problem, if it is a problem at
all.
>
> Joe
Thanks very much for your reply.
--Amos
|
