Mailing List Archive: enhanced local-node?

enhanced local-node?

Nov 26, 2000, 12:21 PM

Post #1 of 4 (971 views)

Greetings all!

I was wondering if anyone may have a suggestion for
the project I am working on.

Here is the situation:

One machine running:

a) LinuxDirector (on 10.1.1.2 ip-alias)
b) named dns (listening on 10.1.1.3 ip-alias port 53)
c) second named dns (listening on 10.1.1.4 ip-alias port 53)

So basically I want to load balance between 2 DNS servers
running on the same machine with LinuxDirector.

Now DNS servers are not configured to listen on 10.1.1.2
interface (alias), where LinuxDirector is bound to (VIP).

The question is; can this be done? I know with local-node
feature enabled I can have (Vip) 10.1.1.2 -> (Rip) 10.1.1.3
but I was under impression that DNS that runs on 10.1.1.3
must also listen on 10.1.1.2 for the packets to be accepted
and processed?

I am trying to minimize the setup to a single machine... with
VIPs and RIPs virtually assigned to the same physical hardware.

Your insight is very much appreciated!

Thanks.

-Jack
Calibri Research
http://www.calibri.net

Enhanced local-node? [ In reply to ]

calibri at calibri

Nov 26, 2000, 12:13 PM

Post #2 of 4 (980 views)

Permalink

Re: Enhanced local-node? [ In reply to ]

lorn_kay at hotmail

Nov 27, 2000, 3:52 PM

Post #3 of 4 (959 views)

Permalink

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work if you can
get two named daemons running each with their own
named.conf file and their own listen-on address access lists.
(Does that really work? Can you see them on netstat -apn?).

LVS should just pass the packets up through the protocol stack
to the named daemons once it figures out it does not
need to route the packet out one of its NICs.

(You can't mess with the port numbers in the packets when
the destination is local, but your solution to use two VIPs
looks like it should work.)

I wonder what two named daemons on one machine buys you?

-K

>From: "Calibri Research" <calibri@calibri.net>
>Reply-To: lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org
>To: <lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>Subject: Enhanced local-node?
>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:13:17 -0800
>
>Greetings all!
>
>I was wondering if anyone may have a suggestion for
>the project I am working on.
>
>Here is the situation:
>
>One machine running:
>
>a) LinuxDirector (on 10.1.1.2 ip-alias)
>b) named dns (listening on 10.1.1.3 ip-alias port 53)
>c) second named dns (listening on 10.1.1.4 ip-alias port 53)
>
>So basically I want to load balance between 2 DNS servers
>running on the same machine with LinuxDirector.
>
>Now DNS servers are not configured to listen on 10.1.1.2
>interface (alias), where LinuxDirector is bound to (VIP).
>
>The question is; can this be done? I know with local-node
>feature enabled I can have (Vip) 10.1.1.2 -> (Rip) 10.1.1.3
>but I was under impression that DNS that runs on 10.1.1.3
>must also listen on 10.1.1.2 for the packets to be accepted
>and processed?
>
>I am trying to minimize the setup to a single machine... with
>VIPs and RIPs virtually assigned to the same physical hardware.
>
>Your insight is very much appreciated!
>
>Thanks.
>
>-Jack
>Calibri Research
>http://www.calibri.net
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@LinuxVirtualServer.org
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Re: Enhanced local-node? [ In reply to ]

calibri at calibri

Nov 28, 2000, 12:31 PM

Post #4 of 4 (971 views)

Permalink

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lorn Kay" <lorn_kay@hotmail.com>
To: <lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org>; <calibri@calibri.net>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Enhanced local-node?

> I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work if you can
> get two named daemons running each with their own
> named.conf file and their own listen-on address access lists.
> (Does that really work? Can you see them on netstat -apn?).

Yes, this works just fine... I got two named listening on different
IP-alias, with using their own named.conf files.

> LVS should just pass the packets up through the protocol stack
> to the named daemons once it figures out it does not
> need to route the packet out one of its NICs.

The problem is that VIP interface (or alias) does not have named
listening-on. ie:

10.1.1.2:53 (VIP) ---> 10.1.1.3:53 (RIP, ip-alias)
---> 10.1.1.4:53 (second RIP, ip-alias)

If named is not listening on 10.1.1.2, packets are being rejected,
of course if I start another named instance on 10.1.1.2; it will respond
however it will not loadbalance on 10.1.1.3 and 10.1.1.4.

Any ideas?

-Jack

> (You can't mess with the port numbers in the packets when
> the destination is local, but your solution to use two VIPs
> looks like it should work.)
>
> I wonder what two named daemons on one machine buys you?
>
> -K
>
>
> >From: "Calibri Research" <calibri@calibri.net>
> >Reply-To: lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> >To: <lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org>
> >Subject: Enhanced local-node?
> >Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:13:17 -0800
> >
> >Greetings all!
> >
> >I was wondering if anyone may have a suggestion for
> >the project I am working on.
> >
> >Here is the situation:
> >
> >One machine running:
> >
> >a) LinuxDirector (on 10.1.1.2 ip-alias)
> >b) named dns (listening on 10.1.1.3 ip-alias port 53)
> >c) second named dns (listening on 10.1.1.4 ip-alias port 53)
> >
> >So basically I want to load balance between 2 DNS servers
> >running on the same machine with LinuxDirector.
> >
> >Now DNS servers are not configured to listen on 10.1.1.2
> >interface (alias), where LinuxDirector is bound to (VIP).
> >
> >The question is; can this be done? I know with local-node
> >feature enabled I can have (Vip) 10.1.1.2 -> (Rip) 10.1.1.3
> >but I was under impression that DNS that runs on 10.1.1.3
> >must also listen on 10.1.1.2 for the packets to be accepted
> >and processed?
> >
> >I am trying to minimize the setup to a single machine... with
> >VIPs and RIPs virtually assigned to the same physical hardware.
> >
> >Your insight is very much appreciated!
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >-Jack
> >Calibri Research
> >http://www.calibri.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> >Send requests to lvs-users-request@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> >or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>