Basically any changes to the sticky/persistent part are not options :( the hardware that's in and performing the load balancing won't be changed because it works - the NAT portion just needs some ... horrible kludges? :)
-----Original Message----- From: Clayton Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, 12 January 2003 10:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Load balancing & NAT [7:60663] Could you change the persistence to use cookies instead of source IP address (assuming it is a browser based connection)? That would allow you to still load balance across the multiple app servers. Clayton ""Emilia Lambros"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm looking more for a way to play with how the nat pool I have behaves with > IP address use. The NAT config and translations are all working, however I > can't find a situation online that shows me how I can force translations to > not overload quite so much, or how I can make more IP addresses be used so > my load balancing works with sticky sessions set. > > For as long as only 1 IP is being used, all connections to the application > servers go to one application server. Even with 2 IPs being used, I would > have more of a chance of connections going to the 2nd application server to > create some load balancing but as I said, I'm sitting on 8500 connections > and 1 IP being used. I know in theory I can go up to 65K+ connections on > that 1 IP, but I would prefer more like a couple of hundred per IP. > > The majority of articles I've read show how to configure, say rotary pools > or tcp load distribution but not examples of how you can use it another way > that I could perhaps, adapt. As I said though, I can't play with the config > because its a live environment so its a little harder to play and test with, > without a guarantee that it will work :) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Long and Winding Road > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2003 11:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Load balancing & NAT [7:60663] > > > if you have a CCO customer account, there are a lot of articles in the TAC > database > > this one is a good start, I believe. > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_note0 > 9186a0080093fca.shtml > watch the wrap. > > HTH > > -- > TANSTAAFL > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" > > > > > ""Emilia Lambros"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi all, > > > > I have an application being load balanced at one site (sticky sessions set > > such that each connection from 1 IP will continue its transactions to the > > same server it started on) and at another site, the users accessing the > load > > balanced application. > > > > The users come in from different office locations across private WAN > links, > > nat inside is on each of their interfaces and on each interface out of the > > router those WAN links connect to, is nat outside. > > > > I have changed their initial configuration based on NAT overload to an > > interface IP address to be a pool of addresses overloaded. I was hoping > > that the connections would spill over to the second IP in the pool at some > > stage sooner than the 8500 NAT connections I have currently, but no go. I > > may as well have NAT'd to 1 IP again :) > > > > Is there a way to overload NAT, but have it using more than 1 IP in the > > pool? e.g. a pool of 30 IPs, its currently using 1.. I'd love the router > to > > even round robin the use of IPs out of the pool but I can't play with the > > config to try it (live environment) and can't find any documentation > online > > explaining exactly what I need NAT to do/not do :( > > > > Thanks, > > > > Em :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60922&t=60663 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
