Doug, I used the term "horrible kludge" several hours before I saw your post. The multiple NAT pool kludge is horrible because it is neither scalable nor maintenance-free, nor does it include any dynamic distribution of load across the resultant multiple (outside local) addresses in use. It almost removes the requirement for the load-balancing part of the load-balancers, leaving them with server failover tasks only. As I stated in my post, I'd be looking for a different form of sticky (or a different NAT device). rgds Marc
Doug S wrote: > > I liked the comment and definitely agree that some of the authors of Cisco > training material should be named and publicly humiliated, although the > sheer volume of mistakes could make this a somewhat overwhelming task for > the public doing the humiliating. Still, I want to add my opinion that Cisco > documentation and training material is of a lot higher quality a lot of > what's out there, not to name names like MS Press or anything. > > The reason I blindly accepted and posted that particular quote is because it > DOES match my personal experience, which, I admit is considerably less than > the other posters in this thread. The only experience I have is in a lab on > 2500's and 2600's running something around IOS 12.1(T). > > I also want to point of that this behavior of only overloading the first > address in the pool sounds like exactly what the original poster is > experiencing. The fact that Emilia's and my experience contradicts Peter's > and TLaWR makes me think that there are differences in how this works on > different platforms, as TJ suggests. > > I'd also like to hear people's opinions on why my solution is a "horrible" > kludge, as opposed to just a plain old vanilla kludge. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60858&t=60663 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
