LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Route through rather than connect to possible?

To: Kyle Sparger <ksparger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Route through rather than connect to possible?
Cc: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:32:24 -0400
Kyle Sparger wrote:
> 

> >       Someone earlier this year (I think about Jan/Feb)  had a dual
> > director LVS running behind a gated box to handle the failover.
> 
> Interesting.  I must have missed/forgotten about that...
> 
> I'll munge a bit more with gated/zebra and see what I can come up with.

I looked up the zebra docs at the time, to set this up and the relevant
section had a "to be filled in later" notice :-(
 
> In fact, I'm considering using BGP for almost all of my redundancy issues
> as far as routing goes -- which is what LVS is, just with a twist, really.

It's an interesting idea to have all directors active.

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>