|
Hi Joseph,
My understanding was that I was using LVS-NAT, not LVS-DR..
If I use -g (gateway/DR) the load balancer does not attempt to forward
the packets. I get "No route to host" on the client using this method.
The load balancer just gets requests from the client and nothing
happens, no replies or forwards.
"I also have the following SNAT rule to change the source address of
packets leaving the load balancer
why?"
Because, as I understand it, if the realserver attempts to initiate the
return connection directly (bypassing the loadbalancer), the client will
assume this is a new tcp connection, not the reply to it's original
request. Perhaps Im missing something..
"can you make the director the default gw for the packets
from the RIPs?"
Possibly. But I had an idea that a the realservers would not take a
default gateway located on another LAN (as the loadbalancer is).
I would like to avoid this if possible as I dont know if the servers
(Windows 2003 Server) or firewall (Cisco ASA5510) can do this..
Thanks.
Andy
Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>
>
>>> I have the following set up using ipvsadm:
>>>
>>> # ipvsadm -A -t 10.91.243.10:80 -s rr
>>> # ipvsadm -a -t 10.91.243.10:80 -r 10.19.60.230:80 -m
>>> # ipvsadm -a -t 10.91.243.10:80 -r 10.19.60.231:80 -m
>>>
>> OK, so you're using LVS-DR. This means the traffic should ideally only
>> touch the director on the way in.
>>
>
> isn't -m LVS-NAT?
>
>
>>> I also have the following SNAT rule to change the source address of
>>> packets leaving the load balancer,
>>>
>
> why?
>
>
>>> destined for the web servers, to 10.91.243.4, which is the load balancer
>>> IP that it chooses to route packets from (as its lowest, I think..)
>>>
>
> can you make the director the default gw for the packets
> from the RIPs?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
|
