source_addr
2 TopicsSource_Addr Persistence Problems
When someone is connecting to a virtual server, it is directing to nodes outside of the assigned node pool. This began happening after I changed the persistence profile to source_addr. I did make changes to the profile itself by enabling the following: Match Across Service Match Across Virtual Servers Match across Pools Override Connection Limits In our environment, all nodes only belong to one pool. Each pool only belongs to one Virtual Server. We have a Virtual Server that has 1 pool and 4 members. It is directing to traffic to node members from another pool that is assigned to a different Virtual Server. Node selection doesn't extend to other partitions. The Virtual Server pools that are being used are in the same partition (not the common partition) and the persistenc profile is in the common partition. I do have a ticket open, but I'm curious has anyone else seen this behavior? I can't see why this would be intentional and not a bug.Solved990Views0likes4CommentsOnly 1 active member of 2-member pool for load-balancing
Hi. We are running LTM 11.5.3 and have a VS configured as follows with a pool of two members: Default Persistence Profile: source_addr Fallback Persistence Profile: dest_addr Even though we have 2 members in the round-robin load-balancer pool for this VS, we only want to the F5 to send traffic to one of the members. The other member should be available only when the first is offline. I do not think the above will achieve this. However, according to the documentation: Source address affinity persistence ... The persistence mask feature works only for virtual servers that implement source address affinity persistence. By adding a persistence mask, you identify a range of source IP addresses to manage together as a single source address affinity persistent connection when connecting to the pool. Our source_addr persistence setting is: The default persistence mask is 255.255.255.255. So, according to the above text, should we set the mask to 0.0.0.0 to achieve what we want?426Views0likes1Comment