[nf-failover] Re: [RFC] ct_sync 0.15 (corrected)

[Henrik Nordstrom]

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.

Regards
Henrik