Well, i think that this no have sense. If you want SSL on the service you
not need SSL en the director, the director only forward IP datagrams.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Mack" <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
To: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <peterbaitz@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: SSL on director versus real server
> pb wrote:
> > Hello Joe and all,
> > Is it possible for SSL to be supported on the LVS
> > directory
> > rather than on the real server(s) ???
> > I mean, I think there is a routing ability of LVS to
> > the directory itself, besides the normal routing to
> > real servers, right?
> I think you're saying that you want the director to forward
> port 80 and to accept port 443 locally, ie to not forward port 443.
> If this is the case then you add entries with ipvsadm for port 80
> only. All other traffic sent to the VIP on other ports will
> be handled locally.
> Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, SAIC contractor
> to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center,
> ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA. mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users