[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