Re: Local Director Config
I'm not even sure it is possible to load balance between two servers in a cluster. Since clusters are generally presented as one server. Clayton "Keith Whitfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi... > > I am in the process of implementing a Local Director for the > servers in our company. Right now in the process of documenting > the requirements and design of it. I have some questions for > which the cisco site don't have information in the LD > documentation. I have 2 servers on which I need to do load > balancing as well as have a fail over redundancy in case one of > them goes down. I can achieve this by the LD. But the traffic > that goes via the LD are real time transactions and I don't know > how the application(our) will respond to these requests, since > LD laod balances on a packet-packet basis. Basically we will be > having 2 instances of the application running.So, my questions > are > > 1.To achieve synchronization between the servers for every > transaction that occur Do I need to have a clustering software > for these servers? > > 2.Can I configure the LD to forward all requests to only one > server (even though it is connected to another server) and make > the second available when the first goes down? > > 3. Does the The sample configs in the LD documentation assume > that the servers are already clustered or have only static data > for the outside users? > > Any comments on this or if someone has a similar setup what I am > trying to acheive , please reply back. > > Thanks in advance. > > Regards > Keith. > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Local Director Config
Thanks for the response. So, In what kind of server setup does LD work? Is there a way to disable load-balancing on the LD and configure it to work as a Redirector? I don't know if I am asking for something that LD doesn't do. But, I am confused at the scenario when LD is implemented and what are the things I need to keep in mind at the server sides when I go ahead with LD solution. Thanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... Im not even sure it is possible to load balance between two servers in a cluster. Since clusters are generally presented as one server. Clayton Keith Whitfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi... I am in the process of implementing a Local Director for the servers in our company. Right now in the process of documenting the requirements and design of it. I have some questions for which the cisco site dont have information in the LD documentation. I have 2 servers on which I need to do load balancing as well as have a fail over redundancy in case one of them goes down. I can achieve this by the LD. But the traffic that goes via the LD are real time transactions and I dont know how the application(our) will respond to these requests, since LD laod balances on a packet-packet basis. Basically we will be having 2 instances of the application running.So, my questions are 1.To achieve synchronization between the servers for every transaction that occur Do I need to have a clustering software for these servers? 2.Can I configure the LD to forward all requests to only one server (even though it is connected to another server) and make the second available when the first goes down? 3. Does the The sample configs in the LD documentation assume that the servers are already clustered or have only static data for the outside users? Any comments on this or if someone has a similar setup what I am trying to acheive , please reply back. Thanks in advance. Regards Keith. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Local Director Config
You have the basic idea. the Local Director load-balances per packet. Now you are talking about 2 servers behind the LD and you want the same user (session) to continue to go to the same server till the transaction is complete (usually do to the fact that the server keeps the session ID and tracks it, very common.) What you will need to use is the STICKY command. This command will allow you to send a certain client session to the same "real" server. So once you create your 1 virtual server and 2 real servers type in the sticky command and apply it to the Virtual address. There are foure ways that the box will do the sticky: IP: Based on source and destination of the request. The problem here would be in the case your users are coming from a PAT. Lets say you have one large user base coming in with the same source. The LD would send these requests from that IP to one real (thinking it's the same session.) This could get in the way of actual load balancing. But th egood thing is that it works and is very easy to configure and make sure it works. SSL: This is the other sticky type which has been supported since aleast ver. 4.4. This tracks the SSL session ID and makes sure the client with the same SSL Session ID keeps going back to the same server. This had some problems with a couple of IE4.? vers, where the browser would request a new SSL ID too soon (the SSL TTL on the browser was set to small.) App Cookie: This was introduced in the 5.? releases. This allows you to define a session based on the cookie yor app gives to the session. This is assuming that you use Cookies. If your using cookies this is a pretty solid solution, though it is a bit slower than the previous two. LD Cookie: Released along witht the previous. You also have the option of having the LD assign cookies to the traffic (a great option when your app doesn't) Again this is a bit slower than the first two. On the cluster issue, remember that the cluster has a single VIP and this is the way it should be accessed. It will do it's own load-balancing (hopefully.) So the LD would be useless in this case, unless you have two sets of clusters that you'd like to load-balance. When installing also look at the way the LD is doing it's load-balancing. By default it is set to least-conn. That means the unit with the least amount of open connections gets the request. This may or may not be the right one for you, so read into them and apply it to your scenerio. Remember that your install is a very basic one: You need to set the management IP Set the Virt Set the Real Bind them Set your sticky The Default Gateway and plug two interfaces to separate VLANS. (I think thats it!) Also remember that the LD is a bridge (and never bridge it) the servers behind it use the same address space as the network in-front of it and use the default gateway of the network in-front of the LD. I hope that helps, I'm sure I would spew out some more if my fingers weren't tired! Moe Tavakoli --- Keith Whitfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the response. So, In what kind of server > setup does > LD work? Is there a way to disable load-balancing on > the LD and > configure it to work as a Redirector? > > I don't know if I am asking for something that LD > doesn't do. > But, I am confused at the scenario when LD is > implemented and > what are the things I need to keep in mind at the > server sides > when I go ahead with LD solution. > > Thanks > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > > Im not even sure it is possible to load balance > between two > servers in a cluster. Since clusters are generally > presented as > one server. > > Clayton > Keith Whitfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi... > > I am in the process of implementing a Local Director > for the > servers in our company. Right now in the process of > documenting > the requirements and design of it. I have some > questions for > which the cisco site dont have information in the > LD > documentation. I have 2 servers on which I need to > do load > balancing as well as have a fail over redundancy in > case one of > them goes down. I can achieve this by the LD. But > the traffic > that goes via the LD are real time transactions and > I dont know > how the application(our) will respond to these > requests, since > LD laod balances on a packet-packet basis. Basically > we will be > having 2 instances of the application running.So, my > questions > are > > 1.To achieve synchronization between the servers for > every > transaction that occur Do I need to have a > clustering software > for these servers? > > 2.Can I configure the LD to forward all requests to > only one > server (even though it is connected to another > server) and make > the second available when the first goes down? > > 3. Does the The sample configs in the LD > documentation assume > that the servers are already clustered or have only > static
Re: Local Director Config
great post! - Original Message - From: "Moe Tavakoli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Whitfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:10 AM Subject: Re: Local Director Config > You have the basic idea. the Local Director > load-balances per packet. Now you are talking about 2 > servers behind the LD and you want the same user > (session) to continue to go to the same server till > the transaction is complete (usually do to the fact > that the server keeps the session ID and tracks it, > very common.) What you will need to use is the STICKY > command. This command will allow you to send a > certain client session to the same "real" server. > So once you create your 1 virtual server and 2 real > servers type in the sticky command and apply it to the > Virtual address. There are foure ways that the box > will do the sticky: > > IP: Based on source and destination of the request. > The problem here would be in the case your users are > coming from a PAT. Lets say you have one large user > base coming in with the same source. The LD would > send these requests from that IP to one real (thinking > it's the same session.) This could get in the way of > actual load balancing. But th egood thing is that it > works and is very easy to configure and make sure it > works. > > SSL: This is the other sticky type which has been > supported since aleast ver. 4.4. This tracks the SSL > session ID and makes sure the client with the same SSL > Session ID keeps going back to the same server. This > had some problems with a couple of IE4.? vers, where > the browser would request a new SSL ID too soon (the > SSL TTL on the browser was set to small.) > > App Cookie: This was introduced in the 5.? releases. > This allows you to define a session based on the > cookie yor app gives to the session. This is assuming > that you use Cookies. If your using cookies this is a > pretty solid solution, though it is a bit slower than > the previous two. > > LD Cookie: Released along witht the previous. You > also have the option of having the LD assign cookies > to the traffic (a great option when your app doesn't) > Again this is a bit slower than the first two. > > > On the cluster issue, remember that the cluster has a > single VIP and this is the way it should be accessed. > It will do it's own load-balancing (hopefully.) So the > LD would be useless in this case, unless you have two > sets of clusters that you'd like to load-balance. > > When installing also look at the way the LD is doing > it's load-balancing. By default it is set to > least-conn. That means the unit with the least amount > of open connections gets the request. This may or may > not be the right one for you, so read into them and > apply it to your scenerio. > > Remember that your install is a very basic one: > You need to set the management IP > Set the Virt > Set the Real > Bind them > Set your sticky > The Default Gateway > and plug two interfaces to separate VLANS. > (I think thats it!) > > Also remember that the LD is a bridge (and never > bridge it) the servers behind it use the same address > space as the network in-front of it and use the > default gateway of the network in-front of the LD. > > I hope that helps, I'm sure I would spew out some more > if my fingers weren't tired! > > Moe Tavakoli > > --- Keith Whitfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the response. So, In what kind of server > > setup does > > LD work? Is there a way to disable load-balancing on > > the LD and > > configure it to work as a Redirector? > > > > I don't know if I am asking for something that LD > > doesn't do. > > But, I am confused at the scenario when LD is > > implemented and > > what are the things I need to keep in mind at the > > server sides > > when I go ahead with LD solution. > > > > Thanks > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > > > > I'm not even sure it is possible to load balance > > between two > > servers in a cluster. Since clusters are generally > > presented as > > one server. > > > > Clayton > > "Keith Whitfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi... > > > > I am in the process of implementing a Local Director > > for the > > servers in our company. Right now in the process of > > documenting &
RE: Local Director Config
See below -Original Message- From: Keith Whitfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Local Director Config Hi... I am in the process of implementing a Local Director for the servers in our company. Right now in the process of documenting the requirements and design of it. I have some questions for which the cisco site don't have information in the LD documentation. I have 2 servers on which I need to do load balancing as well as have a fail over redundancy in case one of them goes down. I can achieve this by the LD. But the traffic that goes via the LD are real time transactions and I don't know how the application(our) will respond to these requests, since LD laod balances on a packet-packet basis. Basically we will be having 2 instances of the application running.So, my questions are 1.To achieve synchronization between the servers for every transaction that occur Do I need to have a clustering software for these servers? You'll need to be running co-standby or another clustering software to replicate the data. Local director won't do this for you. A common architecture is to avoid having that data saved directly to a web box, rather to separated and secure data stores which centralizes backup, administration ... yadda yaddda 2.Can I configure the LD to forward all requests to only one server (even though it is connected to another server) and make the second available when the first goes down? The short answer to this question is no. The way local director determines that a server is down is by using ping probe. If you're running www services or smtp services and those services fail yet the machine remains working, no fail over will occur. My belief, although it may be contrary to other's beliefs, is that local director is good only for load distribution and not fail over, though it makes the process of recovery easier if you're using the LD LUD. 3. Does the The sample configs in the LD documentation assume that the servers are already clustered or have only static data for the outside users? I may not have a clear idea of what you mean by this. Clustering in the logical sense or the physical sense? I have always configured local director only after physically connecting and configuring those load balanced servers. Any comments on this or if someone has a similar setup what I am trying to acheive , please reply back. Thanks in advance. Regards Keith. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Local Director Config
Keith, I have agree with Matt on some points and disagree on some. 1. You should never have your application server as the webserver. You are asking for trouble. 2. You can have one server as the main box and another as the backup. We have sucessfully run that way for over a year. LD does not use ping probe to see if the box is alive. It use TCP SYN/ACK to determine if the server is alive. We had appache service die on a server and all the web traffic moved to another webserver. 3. What sample config are you talking about? Cisco have a lots of Doc on LD. Here is a simple diagram of what you want: WWW1, WWW2, WWW3 in load balance mode connect to APP1 (with APP2 in backup mode) which is connect to Database1. You can increase the application servers if you are using "sticky" command. Your database will be safe if it support transaction rollback. That is what will happens when your app server dies. I hope this is of help. Albert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 12:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Local Director Config See below -Original Message- From: Keith Whitfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Local Director Config Hi... I am in the process of implementing a Local Director for the servers in our company. Right now in the process of documenting the requirements and design of it. I have some questions for which the cisco site don't have information in the LD documentation. I have 2 servers on which I need to do load balancing as well as have a fail over redundancy in case one of them goes down. I can achieve this by the LD. But the traffic that goes via the LD are real time transactions and I don't know how the application(our) will respond to these requests, since LD laod balances on a packet-packet basis. Basically we will be having 2 instances of the application running.So, my questions are 1.To achieve synchronization between the servers for every transaction that occur Do I need to have a clustering software for these servers? You'll need to be running co-standby or another clustering software to replicate the data. Local director won't do this for you. A common architecture is to avoid having that data saved directly to a web box, rather to separated and secure data stores which centralizes backup, administration ... yadda yaddda 2.Can I configure the LD to forward all requests to only one server (even though it is connected to another server) and make the second available when the first goes down? The short answer to this question is no. The way local director determines that a server is down is by using ping probe. If you're running www services or smtp services and those services fail yet the machine remains working, no fail over will occur. My belief, although it may be contrary to other's beliefs, is that local director is good only for load distribution and not fail over, though it makes the process of recovery easier if you're using the LD LUD. 3. Does the The sample configs in the LD documentation assume that the servers are already clustered or have only static data for the outside users? I may not have a clear idea of what you mean by this. Clustering in the logical sense or the physical sense? I have always configured local director only after physically connecting and configuring those load balanced servers. Any comments on this or if someone has a similar setup what I am trying to acheive , please reply back. Thanks in advance. Regards Keith. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Local Director config check
Doug, Some people will disagree with me, but in this particular instance, I suggest you download the Local Director User Interface (LUI)from Cisco. You can set this up without having to hop into the command line letting you make your configurations with ease. It's really easy to use and lets you set up probes to properly create a fail over monitor. Additionally, I find it great to use for 'emergency repairs' permitting you to take servers offline while making it invisible to the end user. Optimally, I would set this up to load balance between the two and have a fail over probe ready to take the questionable server out of service. Matthew -Original Message- From: Doug Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Local Director config check Hi all - Is anyone familiar enough with the LocalDirector enough to check this config? The desired effect seems simple enough: |-- port 80 to server 1 with failover on server 2 www.mydomain.com|-- port 443 to server 1 with failover on server 2 |-- port 8080 to server 1 with failover on server 2 If www.mydomain.com is 192.168.10.10 Server 1 is 10.10.10.1 Server 2 is 10.10.10.2 Is this right? real 10.10.10.1:80 is real 10.10.10.1:443 is real 10.10.10.1:8080 is real 10.10.10.2:80 is real 10.10.10.2:443 is real 10.10.10.2:8080 is virtual 192.168.10.10:80 virtual 192.168.10.10:443 virtual 192.168.10.10:8080 bind 192.168.10.10:80 10.10.10.1:80 bind 192.168.10.10:80 10.10.10.2:80 bind 192.168.10.10:443 10.10.10.1:443 bind 192.168.10.10:443 10.10.10.2:443 bind 192.168.10.10:8080 10.10.10.1:8080 bind 192.168.10.10:8080 10.10.10.2:8080 Thanks - I don't have anyone on staff that knows the LD any better than I, so I need a sanity check before I take down the company web site. :/ Optionally, is there any way to config the LD to fail over both 80 and 443 if one or the other fails? Doug Roberts, CCNA == "There are a lot of interesting people here, a pretty high concentration of creative, interesting, smart people. You just have to make an effort to group them together, because they're interspersed with a lot of morons." Aimee Mann as quoted in The Onion == _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Local Director config check
Looks good. the only thing I would suggest is to look inot the name command so you can associate a name with an IP, prefrebly a short name. Saves typing. Also... On the SSL and even the web apps. make sure that there is no need for a "sticky" session. This allows a session to be presistant. Basically go back to the same server for the session. There are four ways to do this on the LD: 1. Source IP to Dest. IP 2. SSL session ID 3. App. cookie 4. LD genrated cookie. If you have questions on this let me know. Moe. --- Doug Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all - > > Is anyone familiar enough with the LocalDirector > enough to check this > config? The desired effect seems simple enough: > |-- port 80 to server 1 with > failover on server 2 > www.mydomain.com|-- port 443 to server 1 with > failover on server 2 > |-- port 8080 to server 1 with > failover on server 2 > > If www.mydomain.com is 192.168.10.10 > Server 1 is 10.10.10.1 > Server 2 is 10.10.10.2 > > Is this right? > > real 10.10.10.1:80 is > real 10.10.10.1:443 is > real 10.10.10.1:8080 is > > real 10.10.10.2:80 is > real 10.10.10.2:443 is > real 10.10.10.2:8080 is > > virtual 192.168.10.10:80 > virtual 192.168.10.10:443 > virtual 192.168.10.10:8080 > > bind 192.168.10.10:80 10.10.10.1:80 > bind 192.168.10.10:80 10.10.10.2:80 > > bind 192.168.10.10:443 10.10.10.1:443 > bind 192.168.10.10:443 10.10.10.2:443 > > bind 192.168.10.10:8080 10.10.10.1:8080 > bind 192.168.10.10:8080 10.10.10.2:8080 > > Thanks - I don't have anyone on staff that knows the > LD any better than I, > so I need a sanity check before I take down the > company web site. :/ > > Optionally, is there any way to config the LD to > fail over both 80 and 443 > if one or the other fails? > > > Doug Roberts, CCNA > == > "There are a lot of interesting people here, a > pretty high concentration of > creative, interesting, smart people. You just have > to make an effort to > group them together, because they're interspersed > with a lot of morons." > > Aimee Mann as quoted in The Onion > == > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = _ Moe Tavakoli __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Local Director config check
Though I hate any Cisco GUI and by nature hate GUIs when it comes to newtroking equipment the LUI is OK. It also allows you to have much more features that are very much lacking in the LD. These include different means of loadbalancing. I'd still do the base config on the CLI though. But thats just me. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Doug, > > Some people will disagree with me, but in this > particular instance, I > suggest you download the Local Director User > Interface (LUI)from Cisco. You > can set this up without having to hop into the > command line letting you make > your configurations with ease. It's really easy to > use and lets you set up > probes to properly create a fail over monitor. > Additionally, I find it > great to use for 'emergency repairs' permitting you > to take servers offline > while making it invisible to the end user. > Optimally, I would set this up to load balance > between the two and have a > fail over probe ready to take the questionable > server out of service. > > > Matthew > > > > -Original Message- > From: Doug Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Local Director config check > > > Hi all - > > Is anyone familiar enough with the LocalDirector > enough to check this > config? The desired effect seems simple enough: > |-- port 80 to server 1 with > failover on server 2 > www.mydomain.com|-- port 443 to server 1 with > failover on server 2 > |-- port 8080 to server 1 with > failover on server 2 > > If www.mydomain.com is 192.168.10.10 > Server 1 is 10.10.10.1 > Server 2 is 10.10.10.2 > > Is this right? > > real 10.10.10.1:80 is > real 10.10.10.1:443 is > real 10.10.10.1:8080 is > > real 10.10.10.2:80 is > real 10.10.10.2:443 is > real 10.10.10.2:8080 is > > virtual 192.168.10.10:80 > virtual 192.168.10.10:443 > virtual 192.168.10.10:8080 > > bind 192.168.10.10:80 10.10.10.1:80 > bind 192.168.10.10:80 10.10.10.2:80 > > bind 192.168.10.10:443 10.10.10.1:443 > bind 192.168.10.10:443 10.10.10.2:443 > > bind 192.168.10.10:8080 10.10.10.1:8080 > bind 192.168.10.10:8080 10.10.10.2:8080 > > Thanks - I don't have anyone on staff that knows the > LD any better than I, > so I need a sanity check before I take down the > company web site. :/ > > Optionally, is there any way to config the LD to > fail over both 80 and 443 > if one or the other fails? > > > Doug Roberts, CCNA > == > "There are a lot of interesting people here, a > pretty high concentration of > creative, interesting, smart people. You just have > to make an effort to > group them together, because they're interspersed > with a lot of morons." > > Aimee Mann as quoted in The Onion > == > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = _ Moe Tavakoli __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
