RE: NAT vs SLB

From: atolstykh@atfam.com
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 15:40:41 GMT-3

• Next message: Steve Ohnmacht: "Re: Testing with TCLSH"
• Previous message: Matt Mullen: "Re: Public address forVPN Tunnel"
• Maybe in reply to: ccie2be: "NAT vs SLB"
• Next in thread: Scott Morris: "RE: NAT vs SLB"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Tim,

SLB supports load balancing based on the number of connections/weight assigned
to the real server
NAT does not have this concept

Thanks,
Andrew

________________________________

From: nobody@groupstudy.com on behalf of ccie2be
Sent: Fri 6/3/2005 10:44 AM
To: Group Study
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

• Next message: Steve Ohnmacht: "Re: Testing with TCLSH"
• Previous message: Matt Mullen: "Re: Public address forVPN Tunnel"
• Maybe in reply to: ccie2be: "NAT vs SLB"
• Next in thread: Scott Morris: "RE: NAT vs SLB"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:40 GMT-3