Re: Multiple VRRP instances with 1.2.17

Agreed, this patch need to be reverted... but your runing different VRID
which is not related to preempt... will have a look at that... thanks for
reporting...

regs,
Alexandre

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Ryan O'Hara <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 02:21:12PM -0500, Ryan O'Hara wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 02:15:21PM -0500, Ryan O'Hara wrote:
> > >
> > > I was informed today about a problem with keepalived 1.2.17 when using
> > > multiple VRRP instances [1]. Consider the following keepalived.conf:
> > >
> > > vrrp_instance VRRP_51 {
> > >     virtual_router_id 51
> > >     advert_int 1
> > >     priority 101
> > >     state MASTER
> > >     interface eth0
> > >
> > >     virtual_ipaddress {
> > >         192.168.1.1
> > >     }
> > > }
> > >
> > > vrrp_instance VRRP_52 {
> > >     virtual_router_id 52
> > >     advert_int 1
> > >     priority 101
> > >     state MASTER
> > >     interface eth0
> > >
> > >     virtual_ipaddress {
> > >         192.168.1.2
> > >     }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Note that both instances use the same interface but have unique VRIDs
> > > and VIPs. This works in 1.2.16 and earlier, but in 1.2.17 only the
> > > first VIP is added to the interface. There are no other nodes running
> > > keepalived.
> >
> > Sorry, I was mistaken. Only the second VIP (192.168.1.2) is added to
> > the interface:
> >
> > VRRP_Instance(VRRP_52) Transition to MASTER STATE
> > VRRP_Instance(VRRP_52) Entering MASTER STATE
> > VRRP_Instance(VRRP_52) setting protocol VIPs.
> > VRRP_Instance(VRRP_52) Sending gratuitous ARPs on eth0 for 192.168.1.2
> >
> > There is nothing at all in the logs about VRRP instance "VRRP_51".
>
> I found the commit that causes this regression.
>
>
> https://github.com/acassen/keepalived/commit/76f9ce36ae389983b48a83a933182739786908c9
>
> Specifically the changes to vrrp_init_instance_sands in
> vrrp_sync.c. Reverting the code in this function fixes the problems,
> but I'm not yet sure why.
>
> Ryan
>
> > > Any ideas on what changed? I've been digging through the code for a
> > > while now and have no found the change that caused this
> > > regression. Both instances get parsed correct as evidence of the
> > > configuration dump (-d option).
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232408
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Keepalived-devel mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/keepalived-devel
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Keepalived-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/keepalived-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Keepalived-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/keepalived-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Keepalived-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/keepalived-devel