LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: LVS working great.. but...

To: Clint Byrum <cbyrum@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LVS working great.. but...
Cc: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joseph Mack <mack@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Lvs-Users <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:35:16 -0400
Clint Byrum wrote:
> 
> I'm a little confused at this question. What is a demasquerade rule? or did
> you mean masq rule? Actually, I have a rule that says -s 192.168.0.0/16 -d
> 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT
> 
> But if there's already a masq table entry for TCP 192.168.1.x:* ->
> 192.168.10.x:80 , then anything from TCP port 80 of 192.168.10.x to
> 192.168.1.x, should get "demasqueraded", correct?

It's not clear I agree. 

for each ipvsadm rule eg

ipvsadm -a -t VIP:telnet -r realserver:telnet

you'll need a corresponding rule so that the packets
can get back from the realserver to the client

ipchains -A forward -p tcp -j MASQ -s realserver telnet -d 0.0.0.0/0
(you might have 192.168.0.0/16 instead of realserver)

The question I asked then is...
Are your internal clients in the zone specified by the -d parameter
in the ipchains line?

I don't know what your -s 192.168.0.0/16 -d 192.168.0.0/16
rule is doing. It looks like you're mapping yourself onto yourself.
Is this OK?

Do you really have a B class LVS? :-)

Joe


-- 
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA


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