Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
I'm curious; why don't you use e.g. 127.22.0.1/32 as a virtual IP address (instead of an RFC1918 address)?
Because loopback addresses are not reachable from another machine, whereas 192.168.2.231 works fine on the local network. (which is 192.168.2). I need requests to 192.168.2.231 to go to a local machine (the LVS director), from where the requests are distributed across a number of servers. These servers need to _accept_ traffic as 192.168.2.231, but they cannot pretend to _be_ 192.168.2.231 externally.
It would then be a lot clearer that the addres belongs to LO imho, and not cause any possible confusion in the future.
The reason I assign it to 'lo' is that 'lo' does not respond to arp requests. There is more to this than meets the eye - if you to know more, check out the documentation for setting up a linux virtual server with direct routing (LVS-DR). /Per Jessen, Zürich