LVS + Piranha + Direct Routing + iptables Problem - Redhat

This is a discussion on LVS + Piranha + Direct Routing + iptables Problem - Redhat ; Hi, I was able to implement LVS with Direct Routing (iptables). I am facing a problem while using the iptables which requires iptables enrty on Real servers like this (iptables t nat A PREROUTING p tcp d --dport -j REDIRECT). ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: LVS + Piranha + Direct Routing + iptables Problem

  1. LVS + Piranha + Direct Routing + iptables Problem

    Hi,

    I was able to implement LVS with Direct Routing (iptables).
    I am facing a problem while using the iptables which requires
    iptables enrty on Real servers like this (iptables t nat A PREROUTING p tcp d --dport -j REDIRECT).

    Below is a brief on the setup:

    I have 3 servers Apache installed on all three servers (Port 80).

    Server 1 (10.50.57.22) -> 10.50.57.55 (VIP) -> running Pulse
    Server 2 (10.50.57.40)
    Server 3 (10.50.57.48)

    I have configured LVS on port 80. Added the below iptables entry on 10.50.57.40 & 10.50.57.48
    iptables t nat A PREROUTING p tcp d 10.50.57.55 --dport 80 -j REDIRECT

    With the above setup everything works fine. Even Apache on Server 1 (Which has the VIP) get the request as part of Load sharing.

    But if I add the iptables entry in Server 1 (10.50.57.22), Requests are received only on the Apache installed this host.

    The reason for doing this is to implement redundancy. Like in my case I have implemented the redundant setup on Server 2 (10.50.57.40) and once the pulse is stopped on Server 1(10.50.57.22), pulse is automatically started on Server 2 (10.50.57.40) which acquired the VIP (10.50.57.55). But since iptables is already active with the above entry all the requests are going to the Apache of same host (10.50.57.40).

    Does anyone faced similar issue ?

  2. Re: LVS + Piranha + Direct Routing + iptables Problem

    i am also facing same problem any success ???

+ Reply to Thread