Re: Ipv6 and preferred_lft

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:19:28PM +0200, Mark Schouten wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> in response to the message by Martinsson Patrik
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.keepalived.devel/4252). I too have
> suffered from the fact that VRRP-addresses are not added with a
> preferred_lft of 0. This resulted in checks being done with a one of the
> vip-addresses as source address.
> 
> I thought that I could put 'iproute2'-commands in the config, but that
> wasn't the case.
> 
> "2a03:7900:1:3:31:3:104:121 dev eth0 preferred_lft 0" in the
> virtual_ipaddress-stanza results in the IP not being added and a error
> in syslog:
>  VRRP is trying to assign invalid VIP preferred_lft. skipping VIP...
> 
> So that doesn't work.
> 
> IMHO, a VIP-address should be added with preferred_lft 0 by default,
> unless a netmask other than /128 is specified.

I think the problem with using preferred_lft 0 when creating the VIP
is that it had system-wide implications.

The solution here is to use the bindto parameter in your healthcheck
configuration. This should prevent healthchecks from having VIP as
source address.

Ryan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step
tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk