From: Chris Kirby (ckirbyIZZATsolaristech.com)
Date: Fri Aug 22 2003 - 00:17:55 EDT
Hi Tony,
I had edited the files directly to add the new subnet but I used the WUI
to add the new VIP. I just tried adding the VIP to bigip.conf directly
and I'm happy to say that it worked! Looks like a WUI bug.
Thank you Brad, Tony, and Evan for all of your help. Having this fixed
has really made by day. If I run into any problems, I will let you know.
Cheers.
Chris.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lb-lIZZATvegan.net [mailto:owner-lb-lIZZATvegan.net] On Behalf Of
tony bourke
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:17 PM
To: lb-lIZZATvegan.net
Subject: RE: [load balancing] BigIP Multinetting Question
Hi Chris,
Are you using the web interface, or editing the files?
Tony
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003,
Chris Kirby wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> I did the following which seemed easy enough (thank you!) but still,
> when I attempt to create a new VIP on the 2nd subnet, it reports that
> that my mask and IP addresses are incompatible.
>
> I added the network below and tried to create a VIP at 192.168.1.90
with
> a mask of 255.255.255.0.
>
> Know what I am doing wrong? :)
>
> Chris.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lb-lIZZATvegan.net [mailto:owner-lb-lIZZATvegan.net] On Behalf Of
> tony bourke
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:29 PM
> To: lb-lIZZATvegan.net
> Subject: RE: [load balancing] BigIP Multinetting Question
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> 4.2 handles this case a bit differently. Prior to 4.x, VIPs had the
> network assigned as well (This is from 3.3):
>
> vip 192.168.0.200:http unit 1 {
> netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255
> use pool appgen_192.168.0.200
> }
>
>
> So simply adding the network and broadcast information enabled the
> BIG-IP on a new subnet. In 4.2, the virtual directive does not
include
> network information:
>
> virtual 192.168.0.200:80 unit 1 {
> use pool 192.168.0.200.80
> }
>
> Instead, extra networks are added in the /config/bigip.conf and
> /config/bigip_base.conf files, or via the WUI.
>
> Here's an example for adding 192.168.1.0/24, to a system that already
> has
> 192.168.0.0/24:
>
> (bigip_base.conf)
>
>
> # This is the individual IP
> self 192.168.1.11 {
> vlan external
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> broadcase 192.168.1.0
> }
>
>
> (bigip.conf)
>
> # This is the floating IP
> self 192.168.1.10 {
> vlan external
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> broadcast 192.168.1.0
> unit 1
> float enable
> }
>
> If you're using the WUI, there's a way to do it there but I don't have
> access to one (I don't like using both at the same time).
>
> That example should work if you're administerting the box via command
> line, although I don't have a system that I can test the 4.2 stuff
with,
>
> so be careful.
>
> As for the provider, all they have to do is add a network onto their
> router for the interface servicing your current subnet. On a Cisco,
it
> would look something like this:
>
> # ip address 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 secondary
>
> You shouldn't have to do anything else. The BIG-IP will use it's
> current
> default route to send 192.168.1.0/24 packets to it's current default
> route, but since the router has an IP on the new subnet, it'll know
what
>
> to do.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Chris Kirby wrote:
>
> > Hi Tony,
> >
> > I tried what you recommended below on our BigIP controllers (v4.2)
and
> > set up these values:
> >
> > VIP: xx.xx.175.90
> > SERVICE: http
> > NETMASK: 255.255.255.0
> > POOL: webpool
> >
> > We are trying to add another class C to listen for on our existing
> > external default VLAN interface which is on the xx.xx.174.0 network.
> > However, when I try to activate the new VIP on the new subnet, Bigip
> > says this:
> >
> > ---> The requested Virtual IP and netmask address are incompatible
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions? We own the entire block for 175.0 so
from
> > what I am able to tell, it should work. We have plugged in other
> servers
> > on this segment to test (not behind the Big IP) and it worked great
by
> > using any IP on the block, a mask of 255.255.255.0, and a default
> route
> > of xx.175.1. But getting the IP's to work as VIP's on the BigIP's is
> not
> > working for us. I'm sure it is just a user error which is why I am
> > writing. :)
> >
> > Perhaps it has to do with routing. When we first transferred our
class
> C
> > to our co-location space, they asked us the following:
> >
> > "Just curious as to how you want to handle the routing for this: do
> you
> > want us to statically route the class C's to a Layer 3 device on
your
> > side, or do you want us to act as the gateways for the class C's? If
> so,
> > let us know what you would like the gateway ip's to be, bearing in
> mind
> > we will need three usable ip's for the gateways as we run an HSRP
> shop."
> >
> > We responded to the above message by saying we would like them to
act
> as
> > the gateway for our new class C. They reserved the first 3 IP
> addresses
> > and used ".1" as the gateway for any devices that we plug into our
> > switch. Do we have to change this configuration in any way?
> >
> > Since our upstream provider handles gateway routing for both of our
> > public IP subnets, they will be able to find each other, just need
> help
> > on getting a valid IP/mask combination to work on the BigIP. Thanks
> for
> > all of your help in advance.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-lb-lIZZATvegan.net [mailto:owner-lb-lIZZATvegan.net] On Behalf
Of
> > tony bourke
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:53 PM
> > To: lb-lIZZATvegan.net
> > Subject: Re: [load balancing] BigIP Multinetting Question
> >
> > Hi Brent,
> >
> > It's not a problem with BIG-IP.
> >
> > The VIP/virtual server configurations (either CLI or the Web
> interface)
> > have a place for you to put in a different subnet mask and network.
> > That
> > alone will configure your BIG-IP to answer on that new subnet. The
> > current default route will work, provided that upstream router knows
> how
> >
> > to route that additional IP space.
> >
> > So all you have to do is add a new IP from a new block, and it
works.
>
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Brent Van Dussen
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I apologize for being ignorant but I have absolutely no experience
> > with
> > > BigIP's and I was wondering if one of you would be so kind as to
> > provide
> > > some simple information.
> > >
> > > I have a client that is requesting additional address space.
> > Unfortunately
> > > we cannot allocate space that is contiguous so the remaining
options
> > are to
> > > renumber the clients site or to assign an additional subnet and
> > somehow get
> > > their BigIP to have VIP's in multiple subnets. Is this possible
> with
> > BigIP
> > > version 3.3? How would it be configured?
> > >
> > > Any other details I should know about?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Brent
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________
> > > The Load Balancing Mailing List
> > > Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l
> > > Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive
> > > LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com
> > > MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG
> > > Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-- -------------- -- ---- ---- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - Tony Bourke tonyIZZATvegan.net____________________ The Load Balancing Mailing List Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
____________________ The Load Balancing Mailing List Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomoIZZATvegan.net?body=unsubscribe%20lb-l Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive LBDigest: http://lbdigest.com MRTG with SLB: http://vegan.net/MRTG Hosted by: http://www.tokkisystems.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 22 2003 - 00:29:10 EDT