Re: [LARTC] Load Balance and SNAT problem.

[Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>]

On 06/26/07 01:46, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> This is a bad bad advice in this day and age.

I think that is a bit of a bold statement.  You are free to have your 
opinion on what is better for you, as am I.

> If there are not enough users route caching will kill him. Here is a 
> recent discussion of this:
> http://marc.info/?l=lartc&m\x117912699505681&w=2

Um, I just read this discussion and I have a few issues with it.

First and foremost:  It did not cover the reason "... route caching will 
kill ..." to my satisfaction like you indicated.

Second:  It relies on user space processes to alter and maintain things. 
  Thus if for some reason these processes do not run or do not do so in 
a timely manner, they may not function correctly.

Third:  You are altering the way a running kernel is operating from user 
space, not letting the kernel maintain its self.

Fourth:  Occam's Razor dictates the use of the simpler and equally 
effective (equality is debatable) method to achieve the same result.

Though the method you site has potential, I think there is just as much 
room for improvement as there is in the method that I suggested.  Each 
method has its pros and cons.

> P.S. I am not insisting that netfilter is superior in this regard, I 
> am simply expressing common requirements and looking into ways of 
> achieving them.  If someone can point me to how to do this with 
> kernel routes - I am all ears, since I recognize that the netfilter 
> solution is not very elegant, although it works.

By your own statement, you are indicating that both methods leave 
something to be desired.



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