|
Hi Joe,
Sorry, I think we (I) am getting mixed up.
> have we changed from talking about VS-DR?
My original message was that LVS-NAT + ethernet bridgeing could be an
alternative to LVS-DR. I never talked about LVS-DR + ethernet bridgeing
>> packets are delivered to the real
>> servers through NAT done by the LD.
>no. The same packet with unchanged dst_addr is pushed out of
the director
>to the realserver. No NAT.
Yes, for LVS-DR.
--but--
If we have IPVS setup for NAT over ethernet bridgeing, then surley the
packet header will be re-written when it hits the LD (normal LVS-NAT).
However the reply from the realserver will have the MAC address of the
router and the IP of its destination (ie Client). The packet header does
not need to be reverse NAT'd on its way out because the LD is acting as
a bridge.
Am I making any sense?
Thanks for your patience,
Serge
> ----------
> From: Joseph Mack
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 21:42
> To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Joseph Mack; Serge Sozonoff
> Subject: Re: LVS and ethernet Bridgeing
>
> Serge Sozonoff wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > That was my original idea. From what Horms said, it won't
> fly,
> > since
> > >the director sees all the packets anyhow.
> >
> > Thats OK isn't it? Unlike LVD-DR
>
> have we changed from talking about VS-DR?
>
> > each Realserver has it own unique IP
> > and does not share one with the LD,
>
> yes but with VS-DR the RIP is only used by ipvsadm when it first runs,
> to find the MAC address of the NIC on the realserver. After that the
> RIP
> has no purpose at all.
>
> > packets are delivered to the real
> > servers through NAT done by the LD.
>
> no. The same packet with unchanged dst_addr is pushed out of the
> director
> to the realserver. No NAT.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
> contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center,
> mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA
>
>
|
