I might just create a new network for the real servers, seems much easier ;)
Thanks Mark Graeme Fowler wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 15:40 +0100, Mark Wadham wrote: > >> Is this a bad thing? >> > > No. But it means you need to do extra $stuff to make it work. > > Briefly, in a one-network LVS-NAT the replies from the realservers will > try to get back to the clients via the most direct route. This means > that they bypass the director, therefore the reverse NAT translation > doesn't happen, and the connection hangs up and eventually times out. > > You need to force all responses from realservers back through the > director for LVS-NAT to work. > > There's several good explanations of how to do this in the HOWTO and the > list archives. > > If you can't find them, or they're not very clear, feel free to ask > again. > > Graeme > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] > Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > -- Mark Wadham e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 (0)20 8315 5800 f: +44 (0)20 8315 5801 Areti Internet Ltd., http://www.areti.net/ =================================================================== Areti Internet Ltd: BS EN ISO 9001:2000 Providing corporate Internet solutions for more than 10 years. =================================================================== _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
