GTM synchronisation issue?

Hi Hamish,

 

 

 

I have resolved the issue in a different manner.

 

It was apparently something about the prober pools that prohibited connectivity. I'm pretty sure I've run into an thing that should normally either simply work or at least give some more descriptive error.

 

 

What I needed was the detection of a physical IP address (address of the node) being online in one datacenter or in the other. So I needed to add both the virtual IPon the LTM as well as the physical address of the node to the GTM. Then cross-reference these with pools and use topology records. If I added the physical IP of the server to the GTM server for the LTM in datacenter A as well as the actual virtual IP for this server to the same LTM in datacenter A, the VIP address monitor was returning correctly, the physical was giving me big3d timeouts. Considering I also created the GTMs themselves as GTM servers (because you have to), what I did was limit the prober pool for each GTM server to the GTM itself. This way I am certain that I will always have only one object for the physical IP that is online.

 

 

I proceeded to add the GTM virtual server object for the VIP from datacenter A and the GTM virtual server object for the physical from datacenter B to a pool. I then created topology records to tell the GTM that when a request comes in from datacenter A, it should use the pool 'from_datacenter_A' which contains those two objects: the GTM virtual server object with the physical IP from the datacenter A GTM server for the GTM in that datacenter. and the GTM virtual server object with the VIP from the datacenter B GTM server for the LTM in that datacenter.

 

 

Since the goal was to make the GTM return physical IP's when the requesting server is in the same datacenter as the IP it requested, and return the virtual IP for the same server in the other datacenter.

 

All of this because our customer doesn't want to change physical IP addresses when moving servers between datacenters.

 

 

Long story short: it's the prober pool logic that was throwing me off I think. It has been resolved and tested now.