Ack, that isn't the answer I was looking for. We do a load balancer that we could use but, unfortunately it means traffic would go from the router, through the firewall, through the load balancer, to squid, back through the load balancer, back through the firewall then out to the internet and then it would return through that path. The reason we have the squid boxes sitting next to the firewall (logically speaking) is because of the significant amount of traffic we currently experience (1788 requests per minute on a slow day) and the fact that we want to eliminate as many potential bottlenecks as possible. Paul Fiero, RHCE Information Security Analyst Communications and Technology Management Office City of Austin (512) 974-3559 =========================================================== The information contained in this ELECTRONIC MAIL transmission is confidential. It may also be a privileged work product or proprietary information. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution [other than to the addressee(s)], copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited. =========================================================== -----Original Message----- From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:31 PM To: Paul Fiero Cc: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Squid + Policy-Based Routing + LoadBalancing/Clustering??? lör 2007-04-28 klockan 16:34 -0500 skrev Paul Fiero: > 1. Is there a better way to provide the HTTP redirection instead > of policy based routing or WCCP? Getting proxy (or better yet, PAC file) settings out to the clients. > 2. Assuming the policy based routing is best what would be the > better way of providing load-balancing/failover besides the > clustering? Policy-route to a reasonable load balancer, or alternatively a router capable of running WCCP. Regards Henrik
