Hi Sebastiaan

Many thanks for that hint, it does work just perfectly, after I configured an 
address on the service director inet_listener! :)
Now each instance only binds to its own IP, which is exactly what I was looking 
for.

I think it would be helpfull, if this could be added as a note to the docs in 
the director configuration settings.

And to answer the questsions from others regarding my mentioned „haproxy" on 
the server:
haproxy is not directly in connection with doevecot at all, instead I use it 
for proxying the SMTP submission port to postifix until I can upgrade dovecot 
to 2.3 (which I believe should habe the smtp sumbmission service included). And 
it is also used for proxing to other services, like http for webmail, etc.

Regarding the dovecot setup, I just use keepalived -> dovecot director -> 
dovecot IMAP

Sorry for the confusion, might should have mentioned that in the beginning… ;)

thanks,
Steven

-- 
https://steven.varco.ch/ 


> Am 16.03.2021 um 13:39 schrieb Sebastiaan Hoogeveen 
> <[email protected]>:
> 
> Hi Steven,
> 
> On 14/03/2021, 17:53, "dovecot on behalf of Steven Varco" 
> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Now I’m hitting the issue with the way director determines his „Self IP“ by 
>> trying to 
>> bind to all configured director_servers IPs, taking the first one possible.
>> 
>> However this approach only works, when the sysctl setting is: 
>> net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind=0
>> On the other side keepalived needs net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind=1 in order to 
>> bind the VIP.
> 
> This can be fixed by specifying the IP address of the director in the 
> inet_listener section of the director service, like this:
> 
>  service director {
>    ### other configuration here ###
>    inet_listener {
>      address = 172.20.1.4
>      port = 9090
>    } 
>  }
> 
> The listener address will be used as the 'self IP' of the director. This also 
> means that each director will have a slightly different configuration file, 
> but that should usually not be a problem. 
> 
> I got this from skimming the source, afaict it is not documented anywhere so 
> I'm not sure if this behavior can always be relied on in future releases (it 
> does seem logical to me though).
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> --  
> Sebastiaan Hoogeveen
> 
> NederHost
> KvK: 34099781
> 
> 

Reply via email to