[Spread-users] Configuration file answer
Aswin Almeida
aalmeida at bbn.com
Fri Apr 4 11:35:48 EST 2003
Yair,
The reason I ask is because we have this working in lab tests and during
experiment runs.
In fact, our experiment tool dynamically creates the spread.conf files and
segments on a per enclave basis (only including machines that are
involved). I was curious if this might cause any side effects.
Example:
Spread_Segment 192.168.3.255:4803 {
localhost 127.0.0.1
cam100 192.168.3.100
cam101 192.168.3.101
}
Spread_Segment 192.168.5.255:4803 {
localhost 127.0.0.1
afrl3 192.168.5.3
afrl4 192.168.5.4
}
The partitioning issue that we are seeing is *not* confined to just the TIC
and its outbound links. It occurs with other sites, even when the claimed
loss rate from "s" and "r" is 5-7%. This suggests that the problem is
either with the network itself (a possibility, as one does not control the
public links we are relying on for the VPN) or we'd still be able to tweak
something within Spread (the application itself).
See Sara's reply (previously) for details.
Regards,
Aswin
At 07:45 AM 04/03/2003 -0500, Yair Amir wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This configuration should not work. Take out the 127.0.0.1 from the
>segment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> :) Yair.
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > One follow up question to this:
> >
> > Is there anything wrong with specifying a localhost entry for a Spread
> > Segment that defines a.b.c.255?
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Spread_Segment x.2.2.255 {
> > localhost 127.0.0.1 <---
> > other1 128.2.2.10
> > other2 128.2.2.11
> > }
> >
> > -Aswin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Spread-users mailing list
>Spread-users at lists.spread.org
>http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
More information about the Spread-users
mailing list