-
The virtual IP works from the master node
But neither ping nor netcat works from worker nodes when using the vip. The master.ip replies fine to ICMP and HTTP on 6443 from worker nodes. Current BehaviorThe vip is listed in ip addr for the eth0 interface, with the master ip, but the vip does not show in ifconfig (normal perhaps, or the cause?) tcpdump on master and worker nodes both show ARP reqs and replies with the correct MAC hardware address for the master's eth0 NIC. So not some blocking of gratuitous ARP. I'd have thought it would be ok from that, but isn't.... ContextOperating system: Hardware: Variables Used
metal lb disabled in previous attempts, but reset back to actual repo, but same problems even with metallb
Hosts
[master]
172.16.3.1
[node]
172.16.3.2
172.16.3.3
172.16.3.4
[k3s_cluster:children]
master
node I've checked the General Troubleshooting Guide. I have used the reset and deployment scripts several times . Going mad! Many thanks for any pointers! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 6 comments
-
EDITED ABOVE:metal lb was disabled in previous attempts, but reset back to actual repo, but same problems even with metallb |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
ifconfig eth0
although i see that ifconfig is more of date than I realised (https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/672090), so ip addr should give the answer ip addr show eth0
which looks ok i think............??? Yet 172.16.30.222 is not responding outside of that master node |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Just to triple check the ARP behaviour from a worker node:
But then a ping to the same .222 address fails....... Makes zero sense to me |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The master node has never had anything on it, and I have rerun the reset scripts several times |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Ok, just noticed that traceroute for the .222 vip is being sent out the default gateway onto the internet! Makes no sense. My home DHCP is correctly handing out IPs with a 255.255.240.0 subnetmask, which is correct for a /20 CIDR (the whole network is on 172.16.0.0/20) You can see that correct subnet here in the comment above: #298 (comment) Now seems like a pure LAN networking issue, but I doubt that I am the first to see this |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
....yup, I only changed the first two octets of the VIP in all.yml. That placed it outside the /20 range, so get sent to the internet Days wasted on something obvious!!! Well, hopefully someone else benefits from this.... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
....yup, I only changed the first two octets of the VIP in all.yml. That placed it outside the /20 range, so get sent to the internet
Days wasted on something obvious!!!
Well, hopefully someone else benefits from this....