Re: Re: Re: LVS Director as default gw?

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: LVS Director as default gw?
From: "Aihua Liu" <liuah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:1:41 +0800
>       Hello,
>On Thu, 22 May 2003, Aihua Liu wrote:
>>     I wonder if the Director can rewrites both the source IP address and
>> destination IP address for all packets. For example, Director replaces
>> the destination IP address with real servers' IP address and replaces
>> the source IP address with Director private IP address for incoming
>> packets. Then real servers don't have to set the Director as default
>> gateway. LVS can do it? Thank you
>       That will need allocating unique TCP/UDP port in the
>director for each conn to the real servers.

    Can you tell me why? Currently LVS-NAT mode don't need allocate unique
TCP/UDP port in the director for each conn.

>       It is not a big pain to use the LVS box as default router
>for the real servers in LVS-DR mode. We already do it for LVS-NAT.
>You can always patch your routing in the LVS box in a safe manner
>with forward_shared flag:
>       The LVS HOWTO contains examples how to do it exactly.
>       Anyone who worry about bandwidth problems can give it a try.
>In IPVS for 2.4 the difference in forwarding NAT and DR is small.
>So, choosing NAT or DR depends only on the ability to
>route properly the packets and on the real server setups: for
>some admins it is preferred the servers to listen on VIPs, etc. For
>others it is difficult to solve the ARP problem with DR (eg. patches not
>present in real server's kernels or difficult to do it in other OSes).
>So, there are different but _possible_ alternatives.
>Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>

I want to implement this for multi-directors loadbalancing. 

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