LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: vs/nat + ipcop

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: vs/nat + ipcop
From: Matthew Lenz <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:04:28 -0500
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 19:09 -0400, Mack.Joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Most of the setups I see describe a layered approach:
> >
> >     firewall
> >        |
> > lb (lvs director)
> >       /|\
> >   http servers
> >
> > Is there any technical advantage to separating the
> > firewall and lb onto
> > different pieces of hardware?  Is it a requirement?
> 
> It was till recently. The director is a specialised router
> and its own idea of routing bypassed attempts by netfilter
> to affect the routing of packets. This has been mostly fixed
> so that the director looks like a normal node now, but you
> still have to keep your head on straight. See the howto for
> making your director a firewall
> 
> Joe

I was looking at the lvs-howto in the section "18. LVS: Running a
firewall on the director: Interaction between LVS and netfilter
(iptables)."

Is this considered stable now?  It looks like it was updated over a year
ago.  I'd asked before if any firewall projects include LVS support in
their distribution, does anyone know?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>