In short I have two questions:
We use both IP addresses for different services, is this a problem? If so, why?
We lease an additional IP address and we use both of em, shouldn't be a problem.
(Ive replace two last octets with "foo" and target and our_selves in the email below. They are on the same subnet (/24) and ARP traffic is of course natural as traffic won't go thru gateway when two clients are on the same local network .. )
See email history:
---------------------
Bonjour,
There is no access for kimsufi servers to ovh support, i could not answer you. A team is handling demands on our forum:
http://forum.kimsufi.com
You can get answers only for commercial, hardware and network side, for software you'll get answers from our community.
Regards, Maxime D.
| Nouveau:
|
| Suivez l'état des réseaux/machines, les opérations en cours depuis:
|
http://travaux.ovh.com/
> Hi!
>
> I got noticed from my friend that he received an email about blocking of our +1 IP address: (IP failover address):
>
> How may I contact you using my email client btw? Emailing back to
support@ovh.com didn't seem to reach you guys ..
>
> On 01/06/14 at 01:41pm, x wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From:
> > Date: Jan 6, 2014 1:21 AM
> > Subject: Bad configuration regarding your server foo.our.kimsufi.com
> > To: xxx
> > Cc:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have detected that your server foo.our.kimsufi.com unnecessarily
> sending
> > a large number of requests over the network via its IP failover
> 94.23.foo.our_ip
> > This is due to a misconfiguration.
> >
> > We ask you kindly to reconfigure the IP failover
> > 94.23.foo.our_ip as soon as possible.
>
> Both IP adresses is in use for different services, with "failover ip" as
> default.
> How is this a problem?
>
> We lease the additional IP address and have them both in use.
> (read: traffic will flow on both IP addresses)
>
> Is this a problem? If so, why?
>
> > You will find below a sample of queries sent by your server:
> >
> > ------- EXTRACT OF REQUESTS -------
> >
> > Sun Jan 5 13:43:11 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 15:23:11 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 15:33:10 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 16:40:55 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 16:50:56 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23..foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 18:41:02 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 19:10:57 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 21:43:14 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Sun Jan 5 22:23:20 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> > Mon Jan 6 01:21:02 2014 : arp who-has 94.23.foo.X tell 94.23.foo.OUR_IP
> >
> > ------- END OF EXTRACT -------
> >
>
> Yes, another server is on the same local network (/24) and is doing an ARP
> to
> communicate with our server directly as they are on the same subnet. This is
> intended networking behaviour since they are on the same subnet.
Correction, we are doing an ARP to communicate with another server on the same subnet. How is this a problem?
>
> Do we have the wrong netmask? It's supposed to be an /24 according to the
> documentation.
>