mi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 1:48 AM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Packet loss on redundant virtual router since <=4.7.1
Hi Martin,
The public interface is supposed to be DOWN on the backup. Don’t ask me why
this is designed
;So there's something going on with eth2, both are up, and also have the same
>MAC address. The keepalived configurations seems to deal only with eth0.
>
>Thanks
>
>Martin
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>Von: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com]
>
al Message -
>> From: "Martin Emrich"
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, 7 March, 2016 16:05:02
>> Subject: AW: Packet loss on redundant virtual router since <=4.7.1
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Thanks for the hint! On my test isolate
t;
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, 7 March, 2016 16:05:02
>> Subject: AW: Packet loss on redundant virtual router since <=4.7.1
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Thanks for the hint! On my test isolated network, currently both routers have
>> the same
- Original Message -
> From: "Martin Emrich"
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 7 March, 2016 16:05:02
> Subject: AW: Packet loss on redundant virtual router since <=4.7.1
> Hi!
>
> Thanks for the hint! On my test isolated network, curr
Hi!
Thanks for the hint! On my test isolated network, currently both routers have
the same configuration on eth2 (the "public" interface), including the same MAC
address, and being up.
So either the VRs do some ARP/ebtables magic to ensure only one reacts to
packets at each given moment, or so
