[ me: ]
Your problem was having the two machines that are the target of the
load-balancing be able to talk to one another without interference,
There is a 3rd machine, also behind the load balancer because it
is in the same subnet, that accepts the rt-mailgate traffic. Since it is
in the subnet with the load balanced site name, it can not reference the
load balanced name to work. There is a modification that we could make,
but it would then make every hit for EVERY site behind the balancer show
it originated from the same IP, which would be unacceptable.
So you’re trying to get the mailgate box to talk to the other two,
without going through the load-balanced IP address for those boxes,
To do that, put in a second ethernet interfaces, on a separate private
network than the one behind the load balancer, and you might have to
play hosts-file name games to force the traffic to use that link.
Sorry I wasn’t sufficiently clear the first go-round.
It comes back down to even with a 2nd interface, the load balanced
IP is still in the subnet of the first interface.
Yes, but if you lie to the mailgate machine, by putting into it’s hosts
file the name of the other machines, as well as their IP address on
the other private network (192.168.2/24, for example, where the load
balanced interfaces are on 192.168.1/24), then the mailgate machine
won’t talk to the load balanced IPs.
In other words, set up a “back” network that the loadbalancer has no
knowledge of, and force the mail machine to use it.
Was that clearer, and do you think it will serve?
Jay R. Ashworth email@example.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me