|
if the vip on the director is _not_ on the same _phsyical_ ethernet
segment as whatever interface (if any) you have the real servers listening
for vip traffic on, then you shouldn't have to deal with the arp problem.
or rather, putting them on different physical segments _is_ a way of
dealing with the arp problem. =)
so as long as your nic1 on the director doesn't share a
hub/switch/vlan/whatever with the nic2s on the real servers, i believe you
should be ok.
of course it still wouldn't hurt anything to use hidden devices or what
not.
-tcl.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Jon Oringer wrote:
> Here is my configuration
>
> Director: 2 NIC's
> nic1: connected to internet via. ADSL Line (1Mbit INCOMING,160kout)
> nic2: backend network (192.168.0.1)
>
> 5 RealServer's (each connected to its own 4Mbit DSL line)
> nic1: connected to internet via SDSL Line (4Mbit IN/OUT rate adjusted)
> nic2: backend network (192.168.0.x)
>
> since the director & the real server are connected to 2 different "types" of
> DSL Lines (ADSL and SDSL), they are on different class C's.
>
> Do I still have to deal with the ARP problem?
> can the client route to the realserver network if it is on a different class
> C from the directors
> VIP?
>
> also -- the 5 Realservers are K2-550's... each one will handle 5Mbits.
> the director is a Cel-500 -- is this enough power to handle the incoming
> traffic that will be re-routed? I plan to use the TUNNEL method, not the
> DR one...
>
> Thanks in advance!
> -Jon
>
>
>
>
|
