Paul Stewart wrote: > My last question would then be if we ran NAT with SLB then the servers > having to cross layer3 comes out of the equation correct... because with > NAT, there would be a translation happening which would handle the actual > SLB portion?
I personally have not found NAT based SLB to be very useful, so I've steered away from it. I've always found it easier to use dispatch mode, but your real servers must then know about the virtual server IP address. (easy to do with Unix with alias to the loopback adapter) You can also do loopback adapter on MS, but I find MS doesn't really like to deal with /32 subnet masks, so things could be a little more difficult to setup. Anything L2 adjacent can still talk to the servers, just not on the virtual IP address. They can talk to the real address. But I guess that doesn't help you. I find the only time you want to use NAT is if the real servers can't know or don't want to know anything about the virtual server IP address. This can be particularly confusing for things like mail servers because you have to deal with mapping MX records to the right IP address for both internal and external hosts, etc. It just seems messy to to me. Of course I'm sure NAT has it's uses... -Robert _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
