LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: NAT FTP Clients and Linux-2.6 on Load-Balancer

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: NAT FTP Clients and Linux-2.6 on Load-Balancer
From: Donald J Giuliano <guido@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:32:35 +0000
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
> 


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