On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 16:51, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Hannes Eder wrote:
>> The following series implements full NAT support for IPVS. The
>> approach is via a minimal change to IPVS (make friends with
>> nf_conntrack) and adding a netfilter matcher, kernel- and user-space
>> part, i.e. xt_ipvs and libxt_ipvs.
> Its a bit late in the day for me to review the code, but I have a few
> quick comments.
>> Example usage:
>> % ipvsadm -A -t 192.168.100.30:80 -s rr
>> % ipvsadm -a -t 192.168.100.30:80 -r 192.168.10.20:80 -m
>> # ...
>> # Source NAT for VIP 192.168.100.30:80
>> % iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m ipvs --vaddr 192.168.100.30/32 \
>> > --vport 80 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.10.10
>> or SNAT-ing only a specific real server:
>> % iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --dst 192.168.11.20 \
>> > -m ipvs --vaddr 192.168.100.30/32 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.10.10
> If the iptables rule is not in place does LVS just use
> its old NAT behaviour?
Yes, without iptables rules LVS NAT does DNAT.
>> First of all, thanks for all the feedback. This is the changelog for v2:
>> - Make ip_vs_ftp work again. Setup nf_conntrack expectations for
>> related data connections (based on Julian's patch see
>> http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nfct/) and let nf_conntrack/nf_nat do the
>> packet mangling and the TCP sequence adjusting.
>> This change rises the question how to deal with ip_vs_sync? Does it
>> work together with conntrackd? Wild idea: what about getting rid of
>> ip_vs_sync and piggy packing all on nf_conntrack and use conntrackd?
>> Any comments on this?
> That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.
> I think that ip_vs_sync came along before conntrackd
> and no one has given much thought to merging the functionality.
Okay, I'll dig further in this direction.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html