Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Fwd\:\s+Firewall\s+clustering\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Fwd\:\s+Firewall\s+clustering\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] Fwd: Firewall clustering (score: 1): Author: Michael Schwartzkopff <misch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:06:49 +0200; Yes. How can you distribute traffic over both systems? The only idea I have are FWMARKs and loadbalancing according to the MARKs. But is too much effort for a simple firewall. My advise: Do an activ; /html/lvs-users/2011-05/msg00015.html (11,280 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] Fwd: Firewall clustering (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schaaf <bof@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:41:04 +0200; Furthermore, if one box should be able to take over in the case of the other one failing, it must be able to handle the traffic anyway. Running active/passive on equally capable hardware makes sure; /html/lvs-users/2011-05/msg00014.html (10,196 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] Fwd: Firewall clustering (score: 1): Author: Michael Schwartzkopff <misch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:09:07 +0200; Yes. How can you distribute traffic over both systems? The only idea I have are FWMARKs and loadbalancing according to the MARKs. But is too much effort for a simple firewall. My advise: Do an activ; /html/lvs-users/2011-05/msg00012.html (11,213 bytes)
4. [lvs-users] Fwd: Firewall clustering (score: 1): Author: CeR <cer.inet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:56:22 +0200; Thanks, I will take a look. No. CLUSTERIP only works on the INPUT chain, not on the forward chain. What do you mean? Could you be more specific? OK to not user CLUSTERIP. But what about an active/ac; /html/lvs-users/2011-05/msg00011.html (10,286 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]