Load balancer design help

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by mlick2@gmail.com, May 23, 2005.

  1. Guest

    In our environment, we have a Cisco CSS 11000 that has a switch off of
    it. Plugged into that switch there are 2 clusters of servers. If a
    server in cluster 1 talks to the VIP of cluster 2, the server that
    receives the request in cluster 2 tries to respond directly to the
    server in cluster 1. The packet is then dropped. We potentially have
    numerous applications/servers that will fall into this scenario. What
    possible solutions are there to allow these servers talk to each other
    without getting crazy with VLANs.


    _____
    | LB |
    |_____|
    |
    ______
    |Switch|
    |______|
    / \
    / \
    _____ _____
    | 1 | | 2 |
    |_____| |_____|
     
    , May 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Any suggestions or help is much appreciated.
    Thanks in advance.
     
    , May 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Anthrax Guest

    Hello,

    So I assume there's a direct connection between the server 1
    and
    server 2 by passing the switch as an alternate route to the one you
    have
    trough the switch (going trough a second nic), if that is so, the what
    is
    happening is that the packet is being drop because it comes from a non
    valid
    ip address. Is routing enabled in the nics of the server? disabling may
    be
    an option.. let us know

    --
    2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Chaos will Reign.

    ///////////////////
    --Anthrax--
    //////////////////

    wrote:
    > In our environment, we have a Cisco CSS 11000 that has a switch off

    of
    > it. Plugged into that switch there are 2 clusters of servers. If a
    > server in cluster 1 talks to the VIP of cluster 2, the server that
    > receives the request in cluster 2 tries to respond directly to the
    > server in cluster 1. The packet is then dropped. We potentially

    have
    > numerous applications/servers that will fall into this scenario.

    What
    > possible solutions are there to allow these servers talk to each

    other
    > without getting crazy with VLANs.
    >
    >
    > _____
    > | LB |
    > |_____|
    > |
    > ______
    > |Switch|
    > |______|
    > / \
    > / \
    > _____ _____
    > | 1 | | 2 |
    > |_____| |_____|
     
    Anthrax, May 24, 2005
    #3
  4. aservin Guest

    The problem with the CSS is the VIP address. The servers (will say A)
    will try to contact the VIP (let say VIP 1), that packet will go to CSS
    and it will change the destination address of the IP packet (and I do
    not remember what other things) with the real IP address of one of the
    servers (will say B). The B servers will see the source address as A
    (not as 1) and will reply to A withs B ip address as soruce. The
    servers A will say, we do not contact B, we send the packet to 1, not
    to B (because they are seing the source address of B, not the VIP).

    What you have to do is to configure the CSS to send the packets with
    the IP address of the VIP as source, not as the original IP source.

    -as


    Anthrax wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > So I assume there's a direct connection between the server 1
    > and
    > server 2 by passing the switch as an alternate route to the one you
    > have
    > trough the switch (going trough a second nic), if that is so, the

    what
    > is
    > happening is that the packet is being drop because it comes from a

    non
    > valid
    > ip address. Is routing enabled in the nics of the server? disabling

    may
    > be
    > an option.. let us know
    >
    > --
    > 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Chaos will Reign.
    >
    > ///////////////////
    > --Anthrax--
    > //////////////////
    >
    > wrote:
    > > In our environment, we have a Cisco CSS 11000 that has a switch off

    > of
    > > it. Plugged into that switch there are 2 clusters of servers. If

    a
    > > server in cluster 1 talks to the VIP of cluster 2, the server that
    > > receives the request in cluster 2 tries to respond directly to the
    > > server in cluster 1. The packet is then dropped. We potentially

    > have
    > > numerous applications/servers that will fall into this scenario.

    > What
    > > possible solutions are there to allow these servers talk to each

    > other
    > > without getting crazy with VLANs.
    > >
    > >
    > > _____
    > > | LB |
    > > |_____|
    > > |
    > > ______
    > > |Switch|
    > > |______|
    > > / \
    > > / \
    > > _____ _____
    > > | 1 | | 2 |
    > > |_____| |_____|
     
    aservin, May 24, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    Open Source Load Balancer

    Guest, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    9,004
  2. Prasad
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    543
    Hansang Bae
    Feb 5, 2004
  3. Doug Farrell

    Cisco Load Balancer and Linux

    Doug Farrell, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    857
    Doug Farrell
    Sep 16, 2004
  4. Ilja Kessebohm

    Cisco Content Switch - Load Balancer

    Ilja Kessebohm, Oct 7, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    635
    Ilja Kessebohm
    Oct 7, 2004
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,394
Loading...

Share This Page