Forum Discussion

Hamish's avatar
Hamish
Icon for Cirrocumulus rankCirrocumulus
Jun 10, 2008

Non-Local poolmembers on LTM pools

A while ago, we had a small problem where a box wouldn't load its config after booting due to a mistyping defining a poolmember on a non-locally attached network.

 

 

I'm trying to replicate this in 9.3.1 but failing... And trying to get a definitive answer from docs, but there's nothing definite.

 

 

Does anyone know if it's supported to have a poolmember in an LTM pool that isn't on an IP address that's directly attached to the F5 device (i.e. behind a router).

 

 

TIA

 

hamish.
config
design

3 Replies

Sort By
  • Andy_Herrman_22's avatar
    Andy_Herrman_22
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Jun 10, 2008
    If I'm understanding your question properly, then yes. I'm doing it right now.

     

     

    Our dev F5 is in Colorado Springs, but I'm in Pittsburgh, and I need it to hit a couple servers we have in the office here (including one of my dev machines). It works fine. We have a pool set up that can balance between 3 servers in PA and one in CO. They're not even remotely on the same subnet (some are 172.17.x.x and some are 10.2.x.x).
  • dennypayne's avatar
    dennypayne
    Icon for Employee rankEmployee
    Jun 11, 2008
    It is definitely supported but if for some reason you didn't have a default gateway or some other route defined when you tried to add that remote pool member, the LTM probably balked at that.

     

     

    Also, it reads the config file linearly when it boots, so even if the routes were in the config file, the pool statement may have been out of order for some reason and tried to load first.

     

     

    You need SNAT to do this as well, but that wouldn't have prevented the config from loading, the vip just wouldn't have worked.

     

     

    Denny
  • Hamish's avatar
    Hamish
    Icon for Cirrocumulus rankCirrocumulus
    Jun 11, 2008
    Thanks all. I had raised a ticket about it when it happened and there was CR, but I never wrote down what was actually fixed, and the most I've got now is warnings in the LTM log saying monitors would route via the management port (If there's a missing route).

     

     

    Nice to see we can do this now.

     

     

    H