|
Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 3 May 2001, Joseph Mack wrote:
>
> > > The fatal problems come for the passive transfers
> > > when the data connection from the client must hit the LVS service.
> >
> > presumably the people who designed passive ftp didn't know about L4
> > switches.
> > What is the supposed benefit of passive ftp?
>
> May be they know about NAT boxes without FTP support :) But the
> FTP support is useful because the data connection can be marked as
> slave to the command connection and by this way to avoid command
> connection reconnects.
hmm, I don't know what's going on here. can you give an example of the
sort of situation that passive ftp handles that will cause problems with active
ftp?
can you use priority routing to let the real-server think that the VIP
is the main IP and for all processes to make their calls from the VIP?
How about instead if we configured the VIP as a hidden IP on eth0 and
put the RIP on a 2nd card say eth1?
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
|
