From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:09:02 +0000
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter
Message-Id: <20070605210902.GF31415@samad.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1869241242=="
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <4647FA30.5040401@rabbit.us>
In-Reply-To: <4647FA30.5040401@rabbit.us>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org


--===============1869241242==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k3qmt+ucFURmlhDS"
Content-Disposition: inline


--k3qmt+ucFURmlhDS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:48:01PM +0800, Salim S I wrote:
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:luciano@lugmen.org.ar]=20
> 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
>=20
> >Is not about ego, sorry if you take this personal, it is not my
> intention, >i=20
> >speak rude because this list get heavly indexed by google, and it is
> taked >as=20
> >good advice for many answer seekers.
> >
> >You afirm that Linux cannot handle load balancing properly and this is=
=20
> >completly WRONG and is bad advertising and a lie.=20
> >
> >Since 2.4 series has been avaible the greats julian's patchs[1], and
> then >in=20
> >2.6.12 CONNMARK has get in mainline, and with a litle of setup all
> >connection=20
> >problems related to load balancing get perfectly solved.
>=20
>=20
> I did not say Linux can't do Load balancing (btw, my setup has Julian's
> DGD patch as well as CONNMARK). But there are some limitations to the
> popular methods currently used.
>=20
> 1.As Peter Rabbitson [rabbit@rabbit.us] mentioned, one issue is the
> separate control and data servers. He mentions AIM servers as example.
> This probably can only be solved by having exception IP list.=20
>=20
> 2.The other situation, and the one I am more concerned, is about
> different connections which belongs to same session.
>=20
> Consider Client X and Server Y.=20
>=20
> Client X initiates a connection from port a to port b of server Y.
>=20
> Xa <---> Yb   This connection goes through WAN1.
>=20
> After sometime, X opens another connection to Y from port c to port d.
>=20
> Xc <---> Yd   This is a perfectly new TCP connection, so it may go
> through WAN2
>=20
> (Note that the client is NATed, and that no CONNTRACK exist for this
> app)
>=20
> The server may reject the second and subsequent connections as it comes
> in with a different source IP than the first.
>=20
> This situation happens often in IM and Gaming scenarios. Some sort of IP
> persistence is required to handle this. And I was wondering if recent
> match would solve this to an extent, without affecting performance. Or
> if there are some other method available. (Note that I can't depend much
> on cache).

Are all of these idioms of each method documented in the wiki ?

So what is the preferred method going forward ?

>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>=20

--k3qmt+ucFURmlhDS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZdDukZz88chpJ2MRAtUQAJ9Yzqx+dbeAil6I0sZ/8BuEEFRjvwCfZFWk
V1GyrJN6ITqgFysu3fs3bjo=
=KBrA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k3qmt+ucFURmlhDS--

--===============1869241242==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

--===============1869241242==--