Dovecot Director self ip

[Tomaž]

Hello!
Still struggling with setting this up. Is there maybe some fix around it 
or some other setting I can use?
One idea, though not for production, is to add just one IP to the config 
and then add another Director with "doveadm director add ip", but this 
is just for development and testing.

As far as I understand, the Director tries all IPs in the setting and 
the first it can bind, it gives it as local IP - self IP. This normally 
works, because default setting for net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind is set to 
0. So there is probably some other way to check local IP and set it as self?

This "bug" is here for some years now, does anybody have any idea how 
would it be possible to fix this?

Thank you very much for your help,
Thomas


On 29. 07. 2016 21:59, Tomaž wrote:
> Hello everybody!
> I kindly ask somebody to help me with this problem. I'm trying to 
> configure Dovecot proxy with Director. On the same machine is 
> KeepAlived that needs this configured to bind non local IP:
> sysctl net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind=1
>
> But as already mentioned in this email: 
> http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2012-November/087033.html
> Dovecot Director needs sysctl net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind=0 (if this is 
> set, everything works ok, but we break keepalived) because otherwise 
> the second server uses IP from the first server as "self".
>
> Is it possible to configure this some other way, so Dovecot Director 
> doesn't try to bind to all IPs and because of above configuration, 
> uses the first one that binds.
>
> This is the result from director status on server 1:
> root at u1:~# doveadm director ring status
> director ip    port type last failed status
> 172.16.100.191 9090 self never handshaking
> 172.16.100.192 9090      never       handshaking
>
> and server 2:
> root at u2:/var/log# doveadm director ring status
> director ip    port type last failed status
> 172.16.100.191 9090 self never handshaking
> 172.16.100.192 9090      never
>
> My dovecot config:
> http://pastebin.com/RnmHRWhY
>
> Thank you very much!
> Thomas