|
Hello,
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Timothy Webster wrote:
> I am using a 2.4.10 kernel. You are correct in that I plan on using LVS-NAT.
> This is perfectly adequate for dsl lines and saves investment in a router.
> The actual firewall i am constructing has 5 lines, 3 internet connections and
> 2 private connections. I plan on using TEQL between the 2 private
> connections. All devices connected to the firewall in the DMZ have a similar
> configuration.
I'm still developing the 2.4 version of the above mentioned patch,
you know, lockings, another NAT system, so many problems :)
> It would be great if we could make this work for LVS-DR in the future. The
> LVS-DR is pure genious for high bandwidth requirements. "Let the fast dumb
> hardware to the balancing under the LVS's direction". For the future, is
> there anyway I force LVS to use an external balancing algorithm. I am
> thinking intergration with zebra. Currently i am only planing on using LVS
> load balancing on one side. In the future I will definately want to use LVS
> load balancing in both directions.
Yes, agreed.
> > Many, for example:
> >
> >ip route add local 0/0 dev lo rtmark 1
> >ipvsadm -A -rtmark 1 ...
> >
>
> So far I have patched the 2.4.10 kernel with the ipvs 2.4.9 kernel patch.
> Compiled ipvsadm.
> Will be testing today and tomorrow.
Hey, this is an example how this could be solved, it is not
implemented, it is only an idea.
> --tim.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
