Re: Schedulers

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Schedulers
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 17:30:09 +0100
On 2001-12-15T17:20:13,
   Fabrice <fabrice@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

> If I use something like that:
>           [Internet]
>               |
>               |
>           [LVS Box]
>               |
>      +--------+-------+
>      |                |
> [Firewall 1]     [Firewall 2]

Your firewall is slower than the LVS box? Don't you want to have two LVS boxes
too, for redundancy?

> As I understand, the SH scheduler let's you be
> sure that a connexion coming from the LAN and
> going through Firewall 2 will get the LVS-Box to
> redirect all receiving packets for that connection
> to Firewall 2.


> What's wrong in having the returned packets to
> go trough Firewall 1, TCP/IP allows differents routes
> for the packets, and in both case the client will
> receive the packet (simply not from the same
> Firewall).

If the firewall is doing connection tracking and filtering on that, he might
not allow the packets through because it hasn't seen the full connection.

    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>

Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Schedulers, Fabrice
    • Re: Schedulers, Lars Marowsky-Bree <=