In message <[email protected]>, "Henr y M. Umansky" writes:
>According to tcpdump, traffic from varnish is coming from eth0 >(incorrect IP) and traffic coming from nginx is coming from eth0:0 >(correct IP). Apache logs are also confirming the IP information. This is a theoretical point I have had in my "notes" file for some time, you are the first person to raise it in reality. We don't bind(2) backend connections to any specific IP# in Varnish, but let the kernel pick whatever it finds most convenient at connect(2) time. The kernels I'm aware of will pick the interface IP# which has the "best route" to the destination, which in your case is eth0 instead of eth0.0. The main we have not added a facility to bind backend connections to a particular IP# is that it is a recipe for reachability problems and kind of hard to imagine a legit case for wanting to do it in the first place, so can I get you to describe (possibly in private email) why you need to do this ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
