LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: DR capabilities - not arp question :)

To: Ed Crotty <ecrotty@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: DR capabilities - not arp question :)
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:29:54 +0000 (GMT)
        Hello,

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Ed Crotty wrote:

> > I have a fundemental question about the capabilities of DR.. We have been 
> > happy users of LVS NAT for a couple of years but due to bandwidth 
> > constraints, we need to reimplement our current strategy.
> >
> > I have a couple of questions about the DR implementation (no its not about 
> > ARP :D)
> >
> > Scenario - Today we have a fully, correctly functioning LVS setup.  It is 
> > NAT based.
> >                 It goes out to 4 bonded T1s.  Everything is happy.
> >
> > Future   - We have an additional 2 T1s on a different network to the 
> > ineternet that we would
> >               like to have all incoming traffic come down, and push the 
> > outbound traffic out
> >               the 4 bonded T1s
> >
> >       It seems to me that DR will be able to accomplish this.. Is this 
> > accurate?  Can the RS network be a private segment as long as it
> >               has VIPs for the virtual defined on the machine?  The reason 
> > I ask is that we would like to do as little change to the network as        
> >        possible (if its not possible however, such is life!)

        Yes. The DR RSs can work on private subnet. The question
is whether their gateway is on the same subnet.

> > Current LVS implementation
> >
> >
> >                     |
> >                     | internet (out to 4 bonded T1s)
> >             =========================
> >                     |                               |
> >             |       director                        |
> >             =========================
> >                     | private segment .1
> >                     |
> >                     |
> >             ------------------------------------- (10.1.1.0)
> >             |       |       |       |
> >             |       |       |       |
> >             RS1 .2  RS2 .3  RS3 .4  RS4 .5
> >                     RS DG = 10.1.1.1
> >
> > Possible DR implementation (?)
> >
> > (note 2 T1s become incoming traffic points and 4 T1s become outbound 
> > traffic)

        Hm, asymmetric routing

> > internet (out to 4 T1s)     |
> >     |                       | internet (out to 2 bonded T1s)
> >     |               =========================
> >  ======     |                               |
> >  | FW |             |                       director                |
> >  ======     =========================
> >     | .254          | private segment .1
> >     |                       |
> >     |                       |
> >     --------------------------------------------------------- (10.1.1.0)
> >             |       |       |       |
> >             |       |       |       |
> >             RS1 .2  RS2 .3  RS3 .4  RS4 .5
> >             RS DG       = 10.1.1.254
> >
> > Will this scenario work?  Both the 4 T1s and the 2 T1s have different 
> > public network ranges

        Can you believe: only in Linux 2.2 you can use LVS
with multiple uplinks (multipath routes).:

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/#routes

        I still don't know how looks the asymmetric routing (2 T1
in, 4 T1 out) and whether you really need the above patches.

> > as well...

        Is the IP spoofing allowed across the different ISPs?
From your words, it seems, yes.

> > Thanks!
> >
> > -ed

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>