Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Is\s+ldirectord\s+the\s+right\s+choice\s+for\s+https\s+through\s+and\s+through\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Is\s+ldirectord\s+the\s+right\s+choice\s+for\s+https\s+through\s+and\s+through\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] Is ldirectord the right choice for https through and through (score: 1): Author: Sander Klein <roedie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:48:15 +0100; Hi, You can do #1 also with HAProxy. At least, if you take 1.5-dev. X-Forwarded-For headers and mod-rpaf if using Apache will make the webservers see the originating address. Greets, Sander _________; /html/lvs-users/2013-11/msg00003.html (10,033 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] Is ldirectord the right choice for https through and through (score: 1): Author: Malcolm Turnbull <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:15:59 +0000; Jacob, I would have thought it would be happy with all of those requirements as its pretty application agnostic. I'd recommend one-arm Direct Routing mode but NAT mode would also be transparent. -- R; /html/lvs-users/2013-11/msg00002.html (10,694 bytes)
3. [lvs-users] Is ldirectord the right choice for https through and through (score: 1): Author: Jacob Gibson <jacob.gibblers@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:09:04 -0500; I was happily using HAProxy, until I received word that we need to also encrypt traffic to the web servers. So, internet --https--> load balancer don't need any Layer 7 rules. We do need the followin; /html/lvs-users/2013-11/msg00001.html (9,814 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]