lvs-users
|
To: | "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LVS Director as default gw? |
From: | Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 21 May 2003 22:45:56 +0900 |
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 08:21:06AM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > > >However, you are probably a lot better off to just use LVS-DR. > >It allows the (actually requires) the return path to the > >real servers not to go through the Linux Director. > > > > Actually, this isn't true. I have a LVS setup with a mix of LVS-NAT > and LVS-DR. All traffic passes through the LVS boxes works just fine. Ok, you are correct. LVS-DR allows, but doesn't require the return path not to pass through the Linux Director. It used to be the case it was required, I keep forgeting that has changed. -- Horms |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: LVS Director as default gw?, Easytrans Systems Limited (Laurie Baker) |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ANNOUNCE] ipvs 1.0.9, Wensong Zhang |
Previous by Thread: | RE: LVS Director as default gw?, Easytrans Systems Limited (Laurie Baker) |
Next by Thread: | Re: LVS Director as default gw?, Joseph Mack |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |