From: joshua lauer (jslauer@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 13:27:04 GMT-3
Nat Rotary and SLB do look similar but...here are the differences:
Nat cant detect if an internal server fails, SLB can.
So if you have a server in the nat rotary group down, traffic will still be
forwarded to it. There's no detection mechanism there for the IOS to know
it's down or not.
Nat doesnt really perform the load-balancing right...it has no way of
knowing if a particular server is loaded down with traffic or not.
SLB is basically "intelligent" balancing. I'm sure if you see something to
that affect, or something referencing the two SLB modes (directed and
dispatched) then you have a good direction to go in. Or...something
mentioning a virtual server address, etc....
jl
JOSHUA LAUER
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
To: "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: NAT vs SLB
> Hi guys,
>
> Assuming SLB is supported in the lab, what are some clearest clues to use
> SLB vs NAT.
>
> Both features can be used to configure Server Load Balancing but not
> having
> studied SLB recently, I'm hoping someone can refresh my memory and share
> with me a couple "giveaways" that point to the use one way versus the
> other.
>
> TIA, Tim
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:40 GMT-3