On 12/5/22 16:22, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> On 12/5/22 16:16, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
For the case when multiple LBs (same VIP but different port) share the
same subset of backends we need to differentiate between them by also
matching on the L4 port. Without that affinity
> On 12/5/22 16:16, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >> For the case when multiple LBs (same VIP but different port) share the
> >> same subset of backends we need to differentiate between them by also
> >> matching on the L4 port. Without that affinity configuration from one
> >> load balancer might be
Looks good to me, thanks.
Acked-by: Ales Musil
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 2:04 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> For the case when multiple LBs (same VIP but different port) share the
> same subset of backends we need to differentiate between them by also
> matching on the L4 port. Without that affinity
On 12/5/22 16:16, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> For the case when multiple LBs (same VIP but different port) share the
>> same subset of backends we need to differentiate between them by also
>> matching on the L4 port. Without that affinity configuration from one
>> load balancer might be
> For the case when multiple LBs (same VIP but different port) share the
> same subset of backends we need to differentiate between them by also
> matching on the L4 port. Without that affinity configuration from one
> load balancer might be incorrectly applied to another.
>
> Adapt the unit and
For the case when multiple LBs (same VIP but different port) share the
same subset of backends we need to differentiate between them by also
matching on the L4 port. Without that affinity configuration from one
load balancer might be incorrectly applied to another.
Adapt the unit and system
