Andy On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 16:04 +0000, Andy Ashley wrote: > I want to keep the load balancer on its own network if at all possible > as this is a shared solution (multiple client networks) and its going to > mean additional cabling and complexity if I use > LVS-DR and it requires assigning the VIP to the realservers.
Well... > Am I barking up the wrong tree here then, expecting this configuration > to work, even if I could somehow get the load balancer to SNAT outgoing > packets? Probably. You're adding a layer of complexity to the system which I would try to avoid, personally. > Perhaps if I had another physical interface on the load balancers and > SNAT'ed outgoing packets leaving via that interface to avoid the ARP > problem? I think we've already demonstrated that using netfilter to SNAT the outgoing packets is a no-go. If you have another interface on the directors then DR becomes rather simpler - and if you have multiple client networks, you can always use the Linux VLAN module to segregate them. Graeme _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
