[nf-failover] Re: [RFC] ct_sync 0.15 (corrected)
hno at marasystems.com
Tue Sep 28 14:31:46 CEST 2004
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Tobias DiPasquale wrote:
> Why use NAT at all for active-active? Its pretty slow in comparison to
> the shared MAC/IP schema delineated at UltraMonkey.org:
We are talking firewalls here, not loadbalancers.
NAT of the traffic forwarded, not NAT to reach the box.
> Am I missing something? Is NAT required for some reason?
By the firewall policy implemented by the firewall.
More information about the netfilter-devel