Re: Routing Issue
- From: "Richard" <rcowell%nospam%@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:08:21 -0500
I've had to split the network so the web servers are on a seperate network
to the users because when they were all on the 10 network (web servers and
users) all traffic to the web servers was showing as coming from the ip on
the load balancer, that wasn't acceptable because we need to track user
ip's.
So, I split the network to 192 for web servers, and 10 for users. The domain
controllers also have the website data on them, so they need to reside on
the 10 network. Since the web servers have 2 nics in them, I thought it
would be ok for them to be multi-homed.
I guess I could try putting the servers with the data on the 192 network
also... unless there's a routing rule i could put in place which you think
might help?
Thanks again for your help, much appreciated.
-Richard
"Neteng" <neteng.ccie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eyvMaH86FHA.3752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Richard, thanks the info helps. Is therw a reason people can not update
> the
> websites via 192.168 network? Why must they use 10 net?
>
>
> "Richard" <rcowell%nospam%@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ujo5x176FHA.3648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Hi
>>
>> The web servers have 2 nics, one belonging to the 10 network, one for the
>> 192 network.
>>
>> There is a firewall on the network
>>
>> [internet] -- [firewall] -- [lan clients 10.x.x.x]
>> |
>> - [load balancer] -- [web servers
>> 192.x.x.x]
>>
>>
>> The routing table on the web server looks like
>>
>>
>> IPv4 Route Table
>>
> ===========================================================================
>> Interface List
>> 0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface
>> 0x10004 ...00 0b db 94 02 fb ...... Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet
>> #2
>> 0x20003 ...00 0b db 94 02 fa ...... Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet
>>
> ===========================================================================
>>
> ===========================================================================
>> Active Routes:
>> Network Destination Netmask Gateway
>> Interface Metric
>> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.10.1
>> 192.168.2.10 10
>> 10.96.50.0 255.255.255.0 10.96.50.30
>> 10.96.50.30 10
>> 10.96.50.30 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1
> 127.0.0.1
>> 10
>> 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.96.50.30 10.96.50.30
>> 10
>> 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1
>> 127.0.0.1 1
>> 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.2.10
>> 192.168.2.10 10
>> 192.168.2.10 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1
> 127.0.0.1
>> 10
>> 192.168.2.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.2.10
>> 192.168.2.10
>> 10
>> 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.96.50.30
>> 10.96.50.30 10
>> 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.2.10
>> 192.168.2.10 10
>> 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.96.50.30 10.96.50.30
>> 1
>> 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.2.10 192.168.2.10
> 1
>> Default Gateway: 192.168.10.1
>>
> ===========================================================================
>> Persistent Routes:
>> None
>>
>>
>> The load balancer has 2 interfaces on it, one on the 10 network and one
>> on
>> the 192 network. The ip in the web server routing table 192.168.1.10 is
> the
>> ip of the load balancer.
>>
>> Any ideas what could be going on? .. I"m not too familiar with routing
>> and
>> stuff that's why i feel like i'm banging my head against a wall right
>> now.
>> It definitely seems to be some sort of routing issue on the web server,
>> as
>> when the 10 nic is turned on it doesn't work, but when the 10 nic is off,
> it
>> works fine.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> "Neteng" <neteng.ccie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:etDg4a66FHA.3684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Are the web servers and the clients using the same address space? Are
>> > there
>> > any firewalls in place or just the LB? What's the route table of the LB
>> > look
>> > like? Route table for the web servers? Do the web servers have dual
> NIC's
>> > or
>> > secondary addresses?
>> >
>> >
>> > "Richard" <rcowell%nospam%@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:ulTar656FHA.2384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> I've got a strange problem with some load balancing hardware that
>> >> seems
>> >> to
>> >> be pointing to a routing issue on our web servers. I was wondering if
>> > anyone
>> >> had any ideas how to resolve the issue.
>> >>
>> >> The network is configured like this
>> >>
>> >> [lan clients 10.x.x.x] -- [load balancer] -- [web servers 192.x.x.x &
>> >> 10.x.x.x]
>> >>
>> >> The web servers need to be on the 10 network as well as the 192
>> >> network
>> >> because the data servers are on the 10 network which the clients
>> >> update
>> >> regularly etc...
>> >>
>> >> The load balancer always successfully connects to the web server.
>> >>
>> >> BUT, the client on the 10 network only receives the webpage (test page
>> >> created on the local machine) when the 10 network is disabled on the
> web
>> >> server.
>> >>
>> >> Tech support for the load balancer have said this is a network routing
>> > issue
>> >> and not an issue with the load balancer itself.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone have any ideas what's going on with it?
>> >>
>> >> Richard
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Routing Issue
- From: Neteng
- Re: Routing Issue
- References:
- Routing Issue
- From: Richard
- Re: Routing Issue
- From: Neteng
- Re: Routing Issue
- From: Richard
- Re: Routing Issue
- From: Neteng
- Routing Issue
- Prev by Date: Re: Can't browse My Network Places across domains
- Next by Date: Re: Load Balancing over cheap hardware???
- Previous by thread: Re: Routing Issue
- Next by thread: Re: Routing Issue
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
