Joseph Mack NA3T wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Gerry Reno wrote: > > >> As I explored 2-LAN the separation was great for security but a real >> problem for figuring out how to keep all my accesses and shared services >> working. I'll have to work on the security part some more but having >> things in one network definitely simplifies things. As far as bandwidth, >> all my machines have two gig nics so maybe I can find a way to increase >> the throughput. >> > > I don't know the ins and outs of your setup, but since > you're thinking of one network, it can't be LVS-NAT. > Wait! Don't say that. That's what I need. Ok, I thought that if you removed the default route that it would force everything through the director and so everything would work then. > I assume you've only got local resources (like NAS, sql...) > which can be on the (private) RIP network. yes
> Any resources > on the internet that the realservers need can be accessed by > NAT'ing from the RIP through the router, then the only IP > that is facing the outside world is the VIP. > I'm going to be NAT'd out of my mind. First, my internet gateway box is NAT. Then the internal QEMU network for the load balancers is NAT'd. Now you're saying I need a third NAT just between the two LANS? Oh no. No my brain will not handle all this. Has to be a way to use LVS-NAT with 1-LAN. > it's really fun out here. > Uh huh, well maybe. :-) _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
