Re: apparent routing problem

Should the line read:

-A POSTROUTING -o eth0:1 -j MASQUERADE
or 
-A POSTROUTING -o 10.0.3.132 -j MASQUERADE

to signify the VIP address?

>>> [email protected] 04/29/03 08:32AM >>>
Right... Is it returning a page to the browser at all, or are you
looking in
the logs or tcpdump to find out what it hits?

This will MASQUERADE outgoing packets with the virtual IP:

-A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE

If this line is not there, the machine will not let packets go back to
the
client. To my knowledge, IPVS is NOT stateful, so it will not route
outgoing
packets on it own. The firewall must do this.

Let me know-

P




"Stephen Spalding" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've already got the default route of the real servers set to
> 10.0.1.254.
> 
> Again, the problem is that I can only see the real servers from one
> server on my internal network which just happens to have an internet
> interface. I'm pretty sure that it is going through the load balancer
to
> get there as every time I hit refresh on the browser it chooses a
> different real server. 
> 
> >>> [email protected] 04/28/03 08:05AM >>>
> > I figured it was something like that. What would the syntax of my
> > iptables command be if on my lvs router if it was configured like
> this:
> > 
> > virtual server: 10.0.3.132
> > eth0: 10.0.3.133
> > eth1: 10.0.1.6
> > nat router: 10.0.1.254
> 
> There's no iptables need, ipvs *is* masquerading your traffic. You
> just
> need to set the default route thru the director on the realservers :
> 
> route add default gw 10.0.1.254
> 
> The permanent way to do that is to edit /etc/sysconfig/network and
set
> GATEWAY=10.0.1.254


_________________________________________________________
This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.org 



_______________________________________________
Piranha-list mailing list
[email protected] 
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/piranha-list