From: Kenneth Modrego (Kenneth.Modrego@toyota-fs.com)
Date: Fri Oct 15 2004 - 07:48:19 EDT
I haven't had many answers, I've actually had 2 :)
Thanks to Darren Dunham to point out to the following Sun Blueprint:
http://www.sun.com/blueprints/1102/806-7230.pdf
What I found was that the current configuration ( test address on virtual
interfaces ) is due to a series of problems from configuring the "service"
IP address on virtual interfaces, it seems that things like NIS+ or
Bootparamd didn't behave very well with such configuration.
So if you are not planning to run a NIS server, a Jumpstart server or DHCP
Server. you could use the old configuration and set the test IP addresses
on the physical interfaces... but it is recommended to have the test IP
addresses on logical interfaces and the "real" IP addresses on the
physical ones.
Something else I've noticed, Is that with the recommended configuration
load balancing doesn't seem to work at all. I've monitored the outgoing
traffic, making sure that 2 connection where made through the two
different host-IP addresses ( hence different interfaces), and the
bandwidth was divided 50%. When as with the configuration I pointed out I
could be transferring 2 outgoing datastreams at the same time using 100%
of both interfaces.
Thanks to all!
ORIGINAL QUESTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Hi gents,
This more than a problem is a collection of thoughts regarding IPMP
configuration.
All the documentation I've read states that the "Test IP" addresses should
be set up as aliases, that is to say
int0 => TEST-IP0 (no failover) GROUP1
int1 => TEST-IP1 (no failover) GROUP1
int0:1 => HOST-IP (failover)
int1:1 => DUMB-IP (failover)
Taking into account this configuration, the outgoing traffic will use the
IP addresses TEST-IP0 providing Load Balancing
As I didn't like it, I configured the IPMP as follows.
int0 => TEST-IP0 (no failover)
int1 => TEST-IP1 (no failover)
int0:1 => HOST-IP (failover) GROUP1
Now all the packets are load balanced as well, but all the outgoing
traffic is marked with the HOST-IP, which is perfect.
I've checked pulling the cable and it works fine as well.
Here is my configuration "ukbhu032t" is the "virtual IP" that will switch
to the other interface,
[ukbhu032t] [~] # cat /etc/hostname.ce0
ukbhu032t-ce0-test netmask + broadcast + group v1280 deprecated -failover
up
addif ukbhu032t netmask + broadcast + failover up
[ukbhu032t] [~] # cat /etc/hostname.ce1
ukbhu032t-ce1-test netmask + broadcast + group v1280 deprecated -failover
up
This is my route table.
Routing Table: IPv4
Destination Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface
-------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ ---------
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 3119 ce0:1
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 0 ce0
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 780 ce1
224.0.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 0 ce0:1
default 192.168.0.1 UG 1 4
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 3 482091 lo0
So... I don't understand why is the first configuration is the one
recommended.
Am I missing anything? is there any reason that I fail to see?
Any comments/thought will be highly appreciated!
Best regards,
Kenneth Modrego
UNIX Systems Administrator
Europe & Africa Region
Toyota Financial Services (UK) PLC
Tel: +44 (0)1737 365509
Fax: +44 (0)1737 365520
mailto:kenneth.modrego@toyota-fs.com
----- Forwarded by Kenneth Modrego/TFSEUK/TFSE on 15/10/2004 12:32 -----
Kenneth Modrego <Kenneth.Modrego@toyota-fs.com>
Sent by: sunmanagers-bounces@sunmanagers.org
12/10/2004 16:19
To
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
cc
Subject
IPMP Questions
Hi gents,
This more than a problem is a collection of thoughts regarding IPMP
configuration.
All the documentation I've read states that the "Test IP" addresses should
be set up as aliases, that is to say
int0 => TEST-IP0 (no failover) GROUP1
int1 => TEST-IP1 (no failover) GROUP1
int0:1 => HOST-IP (failover)
int1:1 => DUMB-IP (failover)
Taking into account this configuration, the outgoing traffic will use the
IP addresses TEST-IP0 providing Load Balancing
As I didn't like it, I configured the IPMP as follows.
int0 => TEST-IP0 (no failover)
int1 => TEST-IP1 (no failover)
int0:1 => HOST-IP (failover) GROUP1
Now all the packets are load balanced as well, but all the outgoing
traffic is marked with the HOST-IP, which is perfect.
I've checked pulling the cable and it works fine as well.
Here is my configuration "ukbhu032t" is the "virtual IP" that will switch
to the other interface,
[ukbhu032t] [~] # cat /etc/hostname.ce0
ukbhu032t-ce0-test netmask + broadcast + group v1280 deprecated -failover
up
addif ukbhu032t netmask + broadcast + failover up
[ukbhu032t] [~] # cat /etc/hostname.ce1
ukbhu032t-ce1-test netmask + broadcast + group v1280 deprecated -failover
up
This is my route table.
Routing Table: IPv4
Destination Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface
-------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ ---------
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 3119 ce0:1
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 0 ce0
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 780 ce1
224.0.0.0 192.168.0.115 U 1 0 ce0:1
default 192.168.0.1 UG 1 4
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 3 482091 lo0
So... I don't understand why is the first configuration is the one
recommended.
Am I missing anything? is there any reason that I fail to see?
Any comments/thought will be highly appreciated!
Best regards,
Kenneth Modrego
UNIX Systems Administrator
Europe & Africa Region
Toyota Financial Services (UK) PLC
Tel: +44 (0)1737 365509
Fax: +44 (0)1737 365520
mailto:kenneth.modrego@toyota-fs.com
This correspondence is for the intended recipient only. It may contain
confidential or legally privileged information or both. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission
or unauthorised alteration during transmission.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this
correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system
and notify the sender.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to
be the views of Toyota.
This message has been checked for viruses but the recipient is strongly
advised to rescan the message before opening any attachments or
attached executable files.
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
This correspondence is for the intended recipient only. It may contain
confidential or legally privileged information or both. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission
or unauthorised alteration during transmission.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this
correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system
and notify the sender.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to
be the views of Toyota.
This message has been checked for viruses but the recipient is strongly
advised to rescan the message before opening any attachments or
attached executable files.
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 23:29:34 EDT