RE: [LARTC] Advance Routing Guidance

["Laurens van Alphen" <laurens.van.alphen@keenondots.com>]

> so my Question is-->possible without **MASQUERADE** ??.. will the 
> setup(as shown in docs) loadbalance for our real ip's ??

Short answer: No.

Long answer:

You should first answer the question: what kind of LB do you want? Incoming, outgoing or both? If you want incoming only, you don't need Julian's patches, nor NAT per sé. You can use DNS to balance your incoming connections and assing every backend server two IP addresses: one from both IP ranges.

If you want outgoing LB, or both:

Julian's patches work when you have more than one IP range, but each IP range is going only through one provider, that is: you do not have PI address space and do not use BGP4 to announce your routes through multiple providers. If you do have PI address space and speak BGP4, you don't need Julian's patches nor do you need NAT.

This is probably not your case, and the IP ranges you received from your providers are PA, that is they are part of the larger address space of your provider. This means that IP range 1 will only come through provider 1 and IP range 2 will only flow through provider 2.

Because of this: if you don't use NAT and assign an IP from IP range 1 to some machine, the server will never be able to use the link through provider 2, because his address is from IP range 1 and will only flow through provider 1 (read above). For this to work, you THUS need NAT.

Why don't you want to use NAT? NAT is not dirty. NAT is stable, fast, secure and saves you from renumbering your network when you switch providers.

Hope this is clear and helps, if not, ask.

Cheers,

Laurens van Alphen
Keen on dots
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/