Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:52:23 +0100 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: hidden interface (ARP) 2.4.20 |
| |
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:01:35 +0100 Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:59:38AM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote: > <snip> > > Oops, right. I forgot the HW LBs that do triangulation. I wonder > > however, why one wants to use a HW LB and not configure it to work in > > NAT mode. > > Because when you have to deal with thousands of session per second, NAT is > really a pain in the ass. When you have to consider security, NAT is a pain > too because it makes end to end tracking much more difficult when you deal > with multiple proxy levels.
Oh, a poor soul who experienced my everyday life ... ;-) netfilter-NAT may be a real nice choice for your-cool-server-at-home. Talking about many thousand NATted sessions you may as well flush it through the toilet. sorry for the open words. In complete contrary I have _never_ experienced problems with the hidden patch (after correct setup of the boxes). And for another reason: it is plain simple.
-- Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |