RE: LVS Director as default gw?

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: LVS Director as default gw?
From: "Easytrans Systems Limited (Laurie Baker)" <lvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:02:40 +0100
On 21 May 2003 13:21 ... Matthew Crocker said:

>Actually, this isn't true.  I have a LVS setup with a mix of LVS-NAT
>and LVS-DR.  All traffic passes through the LVS boxes  works just fine.

In response:
Sorry Matthew I have to disagree with you in some part, where Horms said "It
allows the (actually requires) the return path to the real servers not to go
through the Linux Director." I believe he was not saying it wouldn't work!
more it is not a "valid/supported" configuration with the return traffic
going back through the director.

Yes it works as I myself supported a system running LVS-TUN that was miss
configured (intentionally) to return to the client via the director to
overcome a firewall constraint. However it is now running LVS-NAT in a
"valid" configuration (and now no sign of bottlenecks as before).

Laurie Baker

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