Forum Discussion
NimbostratusVS type question - design
Hello,
Currently I have a single IP to a single host setup through the following three virtual servers:
tmsh create ltm virtual TELE-IN-4 { destination 4.4.4.4:any l2-forward rules { TELE-INBOUND } translate-address disable vlans replace-all-with { ATT } vlans-enabled }
tmsh create ltm virtual TELE-IN-4-T { destination 4.4.4.4:any ip-protocol tcp vlans replace-all-with { ATT } vlans-enabled pool TELE-POOL-4 }
tmsh create ltm virtual TELE-IN-4-U { destination 4.4.4.4:any ip-protocol udp vlans replace-all-with { ATT } vlans-enabled pool TELE-POOL-4 }
From a functional standpoint this is currently working. What I don't understand is why I can just use one VS such as this instead:
tmsh create ltm virtual TELE-IN-4-P { destination 4.4.4.4:any vlans replace-all-with { ATT } vlans-enabled pool TELE-POOL-4 }
Basically when I tried a Performance Layer 4 VS it did not work, but creating a L2-Forward along with TCP and UDP any rules did. What am I missing? I am only curious because I feel like this will come back to bite me later.
Thanks,
Todd
1 Reply
- nitass
Employee
Basically when I tried a Performance Layer 4 VS it did not work, but creating a L2-Forward along with TCP and UDP any rules did. just wondering if TELE-IN-4-T and TELE-IN-4-U are used indeed i.e. when it works, does TELE-IN-4-T and TELE-IN-4-U handle traffic?
when it did not work, have you run tcpdump to see what was going on?
e.g.
tcpdump -nni 0.0:nnn -s0 -w /var/tmp/output.pcap host 4.4.4.4 or host x.x.x.x
x.x.x.x is TELE-POOL-4 member ip
