On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:03:08PM +0100, Malcolm Turnbull wrote: > On 2 July 2010 10:07, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Anders Franzen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 16:05 +0200, Kristoffer Egefelt wrote: > > > > Hi list > > > > I've been working around this issue for years using split DNS, DNAT > > > > rules which bypasses LVS etc. - now I really need this to work the > > > > "correct" way, ie. realservers can connect to VIP's the exact same way > > > > internet clients can. > > > > > > I wonder if using Full NAT support, which I am trying to get merged, is an > > answer to this. > > > > http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-devel/2010-05/msg00000.html > > > > I tend to use HAProxy in any situation where LVS/FullNAT (Which I call > SNAT would be used). > But it would be great to get support added if it doesn't break anything :-). > Let me know if you need any help testing.
Thanks. I'm currently respinning the patches against the latest nf-next-2.6. I'll CC you on them once I get them posted. If you could test them that would be awesome. _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
