|
It seems as though it would have something to do with that, but why
then does active FTP work with the load-balancers running 2.4.26?
The FTP clients behind a NAT (i.e., our users) work fine with the
load-balancers running 2.4.26, but not with the ones running
2.6.12. It's the same NAT on the client side either way.
--Don
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:35 -0400, Roger Tsang wrote:
> Your NAT firewall is blocking active FTP.
>
> Roger
>
>
> On 8/30/05, Donald J Giuliano <guido@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Actually, to clarify, it is only active FTP that fails on the
> new
> load-balancers. Passive FTP works fine. It should also be
> noted that
> active FTP has no trouble whatsoever on the current machines
> running
> 2.4.26 .
>
> --Don
>
> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:30 +0000, Donald J Giuliano wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm currently working to migrate two linux-2.4/keepalived
> IPVS
> > load-balancers to new machine running linux-2.6 /keepalived.
> > Everything works perfectly on the old setup, but on the new
> machines
> > the load-balanced FTP fails when the client is behind a NAT
> > firewall. I'm running the Antefacto ipvs-nfct patch on both
> the 2.4.26
> > and 2.6.12 configuration so that the LBs can also function
> as
> > firewalls. I have made no changes to the iptables
> configuration,
> > other than removing some superfluous rules filtering
> "unclean" packets,
> > which aren't supported in 2.6 anyway. All the same IPVS
> kernel modules
> > are loaded on both machines. The keepalived configurations
> are
> > identical. Any idea what would cause this problem?
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
|
