hi julian hi all thanx to you all.. many doubts are now cleared.. the **NATing** soulution is ofcource a very steady one but am not able to convince my management for it !.. hopefully they will... ys julian you r right :).. there were white spaces--it's patched perfectly now .. :) .. to you all---> have a :) sunday.. :) A.H Julian Anastasov wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Arindam Haldar wrote: > > >>after going thru the docs i find that with julians patch one needs to >>**MASQUERADE** to the links... we dont want that !.. we want our real ip >>to flow in these 2 links(real ip already being broadcasted on provider's >>network).. >>so my Question is-->possible without **MASQUERADE** ??.. will the >>setup(as shown in docs) loadbalance for our real ip's ?? .. > > > Of course, it is possible ... and depends on how restrictive > are your providers. But if one link fails you can have the problem > of using sources for the failed link, then the replies from world > will hit the failed provider and will not reach you. As result, > your internal servers should know which source addresses to use > according to the link state. The masquerade simply guarantees that > one link is used only from addresses that are reachable from this > link. > > >>what other things i have to consider ?.. > > > As for applying the patches you need to download them > correctly. More likely you have white space problem (try with > patch -l). > > >>Awaiting a reply very very anxiously.. >>A.H > > > Regards > > -- > Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> > > > _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
