|
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:03:44AM -0400, Joseph Mack mentioned:
> > The only *real* use I can see for it - that isn't just a "hack value" one
> > - is that people don't have to change IPs on boxes being moved behind a
> > NAT director.
> hmm, I don't really understand the problem. To save an extra round of e-mails,
> after you explain the problem, you're going to have to tell me how
> transparent bridging solves it.
True...
Scenario;
You have ten machines in a rack, all setup as servers for
miscellaneous services (web, mail, real audio servers etc.). They have
been running for a while, and are near-constant use. You want to install a
director without going to all ten machines, changing IPs (if you wanted to
do VS/NAT) or telling them not to answer ARP requests. These ten machines
are plugged into a switch, which has an uplink connection to the internet.
Install a pre-configured director into the rack, connect the switch to
the director, take the uplink connection out of the switch, into the
director, and hey-presto, you are ready for load balancing, once you start
adding new machines to the rack, with a second or two of downtime.
The Transparent Bridging lets you keep all the old IPs, no
reconfiguration etc. and backing out the director is as simple as
replacing the uplink cables to it's old connection. Or so I think.
LART-like education is welcome, if this isn't the case.
Kate
--
_______________________________________
John Looney Chief Scientist
a n t e f a c t o t: +353 1 8586004
www.antefacto.com f: +353 1 8586014
|
