|
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 07:37:06PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Horms" == Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Horms> There is no need for a local interface, though the routers
> Horms> on the network must know to route packets for the ip
> Horms> address or addresses covered by the virtual service to the
> Horms> IPVS host.
>
> Ah. So you trade configuration of interfaces on a director for
> configuration of static routes
> in your router fabric or configuration
> of interfaces on your realservers and dynamic updating of the router
> fabric (assuming that all traffic outbound from the realservers go
> through the director). I guess you could set the director up to
> generate the dynamic routing configuration itself.
Your routing fabric should be flexible enough to allow for the virtual
services to be routed through the IP address of the LVS host. Think
of it in terms of advertising an additional network.
A number of options have been presented to you that will resolve your
problem and for one reason or another you have rejected each of them in
turn. If you don't want to change the routing fabric to enable
utilisation of the fwmark solution then you should seriously
look at using IPVS-NAT.
> Hmm, Occam's razor suggest to me that fixing the director's kernel
> involves less grief. :)
I suggest that you return to reading the documentation rather
than insulting each member of the list in turn.
--
Horms
|
