|
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:03:08PM +0100, Malcolm Turnbull wrote:
> On 2 July 2010 10:07, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Anders Franzen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 16:05 +0200, Kristoffer Egefelt wrote:
> > > > Hi list
> > > > I've been working around this issue for years using split DNS, DNAT
> > > > rules which bypasses LVS etc. - now I really need this to work the
> > > > "correct" way, ie. realservers can connect to VIP's the exact same way
> > > > internet clients can.
> >
> >
> > I wonder if using Full NAT support, which I am trying to get merged, is an
> > answer to this.
> >
> > http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-devel/2010-05/msg00000.html
> >
>
> I tend to use HAProxy in any situation where LVS/FullNAT (Which I call
> SNAT would be used).
> But it would be great to get support added if it doesn't break anything :-).
> Let me know if you need any help testing.
Thanks. I'm currently respinning the patches against the latest
nf-next-2.6. I'll CC you on them once I get them posted. If you could
test them that would be awesome.
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
