|
Hi
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:38 -0500, Matthew Crocker wrote:
<snip excellent topology description>
Aha, equal cost paths using OSPF. Neat, I hadn't considered that - nice
to see someone making proper use of L3 "trickery" for once. And it
completely removes the necessity for your upstream network devices to
make use of ARP, which simplifies things even more. The removal of the
"live" IP addresses from your directors' external interfaces makes
things even simpler.
Why didn't I think of that? ;-)
> LVS-NAT won't work because of the requirement that returning traffic
> has to pass through the correct director. LVS-DR would probably work
> fine, the real servers could then send the return traffic directly
> back to the routers.
As I previously mentioned, you could split your realservers into two
groups; or you could take Chris Barry's suggestion of running the sync
daemon in both master and slave state on both directors to keep the
tables bang up to date (inasmuch as that's possible).
Using DR negates that level of complexity - and because you're routing,
rather than switching, traffic to the directors you don't need to solve
any ARP problems.
>From here, Matt, this looks like a very good solution.
Graeme
|
