On Tuesday 05 June 2007 03:48:01 Salim S I wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: Salim S I
> Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
> Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs net
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:48:01PM +0800, Salim S I wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: Salim S I
> Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
> Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balanci
-Original Message-
From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:28 AM
To: Salim S I
Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
>Is not about ego, sorry if you take this personal, it is not my
intent
On Thursday 31 May 2007 02:02:16 Salim S I wrote:
> Before we get into the "Top-posting" stuff, it would be nice if you
> follow the normal way of replying (or atleast marking a copy) to the
> list. I think that is the basic idea behind mailing list.
Shure! :-), my fault, not looking at headers, m
ok at the archives please.
-Original Message-
From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:26 PM
To: Salim S I
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 00:58:18 you wrote:
First of all, learn about ba
Salim S I wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:46 AM
To: Salim S I
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 03:16:47 you wrote:
None of the load balancing techniques
t: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 03:16:47 you wrote:
> None of the load balancing techniques I have come across seems to
cover
> 'IP-Persistence'. For example, a session with several connections (for
> which no conntrack-helper m
e a solution, albeit with low performance. Any other ideas?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luciano Ruete
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:28 AM
To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
On M
On Monday 14 May 2007 02:57, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Hi,
> I have searched the archives on the topic, and it seems that the list
> gurus favor load balancing to be done in the kernel as opposed to other
> means.
AFAIKR there aren't conflicting opinions, there are just to different
aproaches and
ound that even with multipath method, there IS a
> need for reconfiguration.
Got you. This pretty much answers my original question. Thank you for
your time.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Rabbitson
> Sent: Mond
reconfiguration.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Rabbitson
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:16 PM
To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
Salim S I wrote:
>> -Original Message
Salim S I wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Rabbitson
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:57 PM
>> To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
>> Subject: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
>>
>> Hi,
>> I have searched the
I have thought about this approach, but, I think, this approach does not
handle failover/dead-gateway-detection well. Because you need to alter
all your netfilter routing rules if you find a link down. And then
reconfigure again when the link comes up. I am interested to know how
you handle that.
13 matches
Mail list logo
