Does a host route override a network route on a netapp head?
I have an interface plugged into one switch with IP 192.168.5.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 and
I have a second interface plugged into a different switch with IP 192.168.5.7 netmask 255.255.255.0
One switch is "primary" and the other is "standby" for redundancy.
There is obviously a routing ambiguity here. Which port does the filer use to reach the 192.168.5 network? It seems to have picked one port (fortunately on the 'active' switch) which I see listed in the routing table. The other port is not listed in any routes at all.
But I was wondering if I could add explicit host routes to the IP addresses on the standby switch. I tried this and it didn't work (ping failed). The destination IP that I tried to ping was on another filer head. It occurred to me that I probably need to set the corresponding route on the other head, so I did that. The routes are listed in the route table, but ping still does not work. I checked the ARP table and neither head has the MAC address of the other in its ARP table. So I suppose that despite the host route, the ARP broadcast is going out the wrong interface.
I think we need separate subnets here but I'm just the storage guy and did not configure the hosts that are plugged into these two switches.
Things are working, all traffic is on the active switch. But I sure don't see how things could ever fail over to the standby switch without manual intervention.
Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640
University of Virginia ITC Unix Support
what about....
vif create single vif-s0 e0a e0b ifconfig vif-s0 `hostname`-vif-s0 netmask 255.255.255.0 mediatype auto flowcontrol full vif favor e0a
assume e0a and e0b are your interfaces. Create a single mode vif (use only ever, one interface at a time) Bring up the vif Favor the favorite switch.
If that switch fails, the filer automatically moves the link to the standby (e0b). When e0a comes back, I believe it moves back to it...the favorite.
yes?
--tmac
RedHat Certified Engineer #804006984323821 (RHEL4) RedHat Certified Engineer #805007643429572 (RHEL5)
Principal Consultant
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Stephen C. Losen scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu wrote:
Does a host route override a network route on a netapp head?
I have an interface plugged into one switch with IP 192.168.5.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 and
I have a second interface plugged into a different switch with IP 192.168.5.7 netmask 255.255.255.0
One switch is "primary" and the other is "standby" for redundancy.
There is obviously a routing ambiguity here. Which port does the filer use to reach the 192.168.5 network? It seems to have picked one port (fortunately on the 'active' switch) which I see listed in the routing table. The other port is not listed in any routes at all.
But I was wondering if I could add explicit host routes to the IP addresses on the standby switch. I tried this and it didn't work (ping failed). The destination IP that I tried to ping was on another filer head. It occurred to me that I probably need to set the corresponding route on the other head, so I did that. The routes are listed in the route table, but ping still does not work. I checked the ARP table and neither head has the MAC address of the other in its ARP table. So I suppose that despite the host route, the ARP broadcast is going out the wrong interface.
I think we need separate subnets here but I'm just the storage guy and did not configure the hosts that are plugged into these two switches.
Things are working, all traffic is on the active switch. But I sure don't see how things could ever fail over to the standby switch without manual intervention.
Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640
University of Virginia ITC Unix Support
if this is a redundant setup why would you not configure your switches with 802.3ad link aggregation and configure a vif on your filer with those two interfaces?
how is your setup even redundant anyhow you would have to remount all the clients manually if the primary interface died or the primary switch died.
________________________________________ From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Stephen C. Losen [scl@sasha.acc.virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:56 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Network routing question
Does a host route override a network route on a netapp head?
I have an interface plugged into one switch with IP 192.168.5.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 and
I have a second interface plugged into a different switch with IP 192.168.5.7 netmask 255.255.255.0
One switch is "primary" and the other is "standby" for redundancy.
There is obviously a routing ambiguity here. Which port does the filer use to reach the 192.168.5 network? It seems to have picked one port (fortunately on the 'active' switch) which I see listed in the routing table. The other port is not listed in any routes at all.
But I was wondering if I could add explicit host routes to the IP addresses on the standby switch. I tried this and it didn't work (ping failed). The destination IP that I tried to ping was on another filer head. It occurred to me that I probably need to set the corresponding route on the other head, so I did that. The routes are listed in the route table, but ping still does not work. I checked the ARP table and neither head has the MAC address of the other in its ARP table. So I suppose that despite the host route, the ARP broadcast is going out the wrong interface.
I think we need separate subnets here but I'm just the storage guy and did not configure the hosts that are plugged into these two switches.
Things are working, all traffic is on the active switch. But I sure don't see how things could ever fail over to the standby switch without manual intervention.
Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640
University of Virginia ITC Unix Support
-
Leeds, Daniel -
Stephen C. Losen -
tmac