| 1 |
Our network admin told me to create a lo:0 to that address to create a VIP |
| 2 |
to be balanced by the network load balancer. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
That is why lo:0 is there... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Thanks! |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Regards, |
| 9 |
Massimiliano Ziccardi |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 15:01, Michael Schreckenbauer <grimlog@×××.de> wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 14:35:46 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi: |
| 14 |
> > > seems to be a really tricky one... |
| 15 |
> > > What does |
| 16 |
> > > tracepath 195.75.145.33 |
| 17 |
> > > give? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Here is the output: |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > 1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.074ms pmtu |
| 22 |
> > 16436 |
| 23 |
> > 1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.039ms |
| 24 |
> reached |
| 25 |
> > 1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.028ms |
| 26 |
> reached |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > I tried shutting down localhost with: |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > ifconfig lo down. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Now I can't ping 195.75.145.33 anymore (as all the other 195.75.145.xx |
| 33 |
> > addresses). |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > And now tracepath gives: |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > 1: send failed |
| 38 |
> > Resume: pmtu 65535 |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > So, for some reason, seems it always uses the 'lo' device... |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > Any idea? |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> I noticed lo:0 is on the same net and has the same netmask as eth0. |
| 45 |
> Where does lo:0 come from? Is it needed? |
| 46 |
> I have no idea, if this is the problem or even related, just wondering. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> > Regards, |
| 49 |
> > Massimiliano |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Best, |
| 52 |
> Michael |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
Archives