-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Graeme Fowler Sent: Thu 1/3/2008 6:18 AM To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list. Subject: Re: [lvs-users] LVS in an Active/Active configuration >Hi >On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:38 -0500, Matthew Crocker wrote: ><snip excellent topology description> >Aha, equal cost paths using OSPF. Neat, I hadn't considered that - nice >to see someone making proper use of L3 "trickery" for once. And it >completely removes the necessity for your upstream network devices to >make use of ARP, which simplifies things even more. The removal of the >"live" IP addresses from your directors' external interfaces makes >things even simpler. > >Why didn't I think of that? ;-) >> LVS-NAT won't work because of the requirement that returning traffic >> has to pass through the correct director. LVS-DR would probably work >> fine, the real servers could then send the return traffic directly >> back to the routers. >As I previously mentioned, you could split your realservers into two >groups; or you could take Chris Barry's suggestion of running the sync >daemon in both master and slave state on both directors to keep the >tables bang up to date (inasmuch as that's possible). >Using DR negates that level of complexity - and because you're routing, >rather than switching, traffic to the directors you don't need to solve >any ARP problems. >>From here, Matt, this looks like a very good solution. >Graeme Hmmm. Being a victim of your own genius, Matt, it looks like someone has a HowTo to write... ;)
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
