Re: doing both NAT and DR, I need help.

To: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: doing both NAT and DR, I need help.
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Jeremy Hansen <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:04:29 -0400 (EDT)
Cool, that's what I thought, but like you I was also unsuccessful.  Let me
know if you get a chance to try again.  In my particular situation it
would be a big benefit to be able to do this and I'm sure others as well.

With the recent stress put on hosting providers to save ip space, etc, be
able to use direct routing and nat with internal and routable address
space would be pretty cool to do for people who have the need to do other
things from the real servers, like cvs over ssh in my case.


On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Horms wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 01:02:33PM -0400, tc lewis wrote:
> > 
> > does the "ip" command not have this functionality?
> > to setup special routing from the real servers.
> > then if you want to use your balancer as a nat server at the same time i
> > don't see why that wouldn't work as long as the traffic has nothing to do
> > with the load balanced traffic, but maybe there is actually a problem
> > there and you would need a separate machine for nat/masquerading.
> I once unsuccessfully tried to use ip to do policy routing such that traffic
> destined for the outside world would go through a NAT box, rather than
> going direct. You should be able to make a route to match the source
> address on the real server, as this will be its IP address, rather than
> that of a virtual service.
> The attempt was unsuccessful but I do believe it is possible, I just had
> other priorities at the time.
> -- 
> Horms
> * jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx
eholes have feelings too...

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