From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:34:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Load Balance and SNAT problem. Message-Id: <4681CCA6.9080308@riverviewtech.net> List-Id: References: <7e47206b0706242007q487365d3gb7c12658b9669edd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7e47206b0706242007q487365d3gb7c12658b9669edd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On 6/26/2007 9:14 PM, Mohan Sundaram wrote: > I remember that route balancing has an option to perform per packet > balancing and not per connection. If that were to work, then route > cache would not be used IMHO. Interesting. Do you have any idea where I can get some more information regarding this? > Per packet balancing is normally not done as it would break > connections especially in NAT'ted scenario. Keep in mind that NATing is not the only place that load balancing is used. I call to mind my recent thread "Redundant internet connections" (http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2007q2/021015.html) where I had globally routable IP addresses in side the DMZ. I could have used per packet load balancing with out a problem except for the fact that I specifically wanted to not use the backup connection unless the primary was down. Grant. . . . _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc