|
At 07:34 PM 5/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi, all
>
>I want to customize the LVS framework to fit my research project.
>
>The way LVS uses NAT is that it assumes that all servers are behind the
>director so the director only need to change the destination IP when a
>request comes in and forward that to the scheduled real server. When the
>reply packets go through the director it will change the source IP. This
>limits the deployment of LVS using NAT: the director must be the outgoing
>gateway for all servers.
>
>I am wondering if I can change the code so that both source and
>destinamtion IPs are changed in both ways. For example,
>CIP: client IP;
>DIP: director IP;
>SIP: server IP (public IPs);
>
>Client->Director->Server: address pair (CIP, DIP) is changed to (DIP, SIP)
Client IP address is very important for analyzing the traffic for
marketing people. Get rid of the CIP will make web server
has no way to log where the traffic coming from, thus totally
blind the marketing people, that is very undesirable for many
use.
>Server->Director->Client: address pair (SIP, DIP) is changed to (DIP, CIP).
Do you have to allocate a table for tracking these changes, too?
That will further slow down the director.
>Of course, the director need to allocate a new port number and change the
>source port number to it when it forwards the packet to the server. Thus
>this local port number should be enough for the director to distinguish
>different connections.
>
>This way, there will be no limitation where the servers are (the tunneling
>solution needs the change of server: setup tunneling)
>
>Now the question is: Is it feasible to implement this? Or there are flaws
>of it?
>
>thanks,
>-Tao
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
