|
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:41:07AM +0000, John P. Looney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:03:44AM -0400, Joseph Mack mentioned:
> > > The only *real* use I can see for it - that isn't just a "hack value" one
> > > - is that people don't have to change IPs on boxes being moved behind a
> > > NAT director.
> > hmm, I don't really understand the problem. To save an extra round of
> > e-mails,
> > after you explain the problem, you're going to have to tell me how
> > transparent bridging solves it.
>
> True...
>
> Scenario;
>
> You have ten machines in a rack, all setup as servers for
> miscellaneous services (web, mail, real audio servers etc.). They have
> been running for a while, and are near-constant use. You want to install a
> director without going to all ten machines, changing IPs (if you wanted to
> do VS/NAT) or telling them not to answer ARP requests. These ten machines
> are plugged into a switch, which has an uplink connection to the internet.
>
> Install a pre-configured director into the rack, connect the switch to
> the director, take the uplink connection out of the switch, into the
> director, and hey-presto, you are ready for load balancing, once you start
> adding new machines to the rack, with a second or two of downtime.
>
> The Transparent Bridging lets you keep all the old IPs, no
> reconfiguration etc. and backing out the director is as simple as
> replacing the uplink cables to it's old connection. Or so I think.
>
> LART-like education is welcome, if this isn't the case.
You could also use proxy-arp in lieu of bridging.
--
Horms
|
