|
Hi,
> That was my original idea. From what Horms said, it won't fly,
since
>the director sees all the packets anyhow.
Thats OK isn't it? Unlike LVD-DR each Realserver has it own unique IP
and does not share one with the LD, packets are delivered to the real
servers through NAT done by the LD. The servers can have the router as
their gateway, but the taffic will still flow through the LD allowing it
to
keep track of whats going on at the NAT level.
Am I missing something fundamental?
Thanks, Serge
> ----------
> From: Joseph Mack
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 20:55
> To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Serge Sozonoff
> Subject: Re: LVS and ethernet Bridgeing
>
> Serge Sozonoff wrote:
>
> > Well this would I guess give me LVS-DR without the ARP headache for
> one.
>
> That was my original idea. From what Horms said, it won't fly, since
> the director sees all the packets anyhow.
>
> You can use the director as the default gw for VS-DR if you use
> Julian's martian modification (see the HOWTO), which is now
> included with his hidden patch for 2.4 (look for the
> hidden-forward-shared
> patch) - you apply the patch to the director and the realservers -
> on the director you're using the forward-shared patch. On the
> realservers you're using the hidden patch (although if you've set
> the routing up correctly, the realservers can't directly receive
> packets from the client, and you don't need the hidden patch)
>
> My configure script can set this up for you.
>
> 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
>
>
|
