P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT). RFC 2391, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/ rfc2391.txt.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....ONE IP [24] from Bell Labs and LSMAC [20] from the University of Nebraska. Most of the commercial load balancing solutions provide this kind of clustering as an option. It is also known as Load Sharing Using Network Address Translation (LSNAT) and it is an Internet standard detailed in RFC 2391[30]. Examples of commercial implementations are Cisco s LocalDirector 400 series [5] Foundry Networks ServerIron web switches[11] and Nortel s Alteon ACEdirector series [23] A research prototype using it is MagicRouter from Berkeley [22] In L4 3 each server in the cluster has a unique IP ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (RFC 2391), August 1998.

.... of fast packet 37 Packet double rewriting Packet single rewriting Packet tunneling Packet forwarding Cisco s TCP Router [44] Linux Virtual IBM Network LocalDirector [33] Server [68] Dispatcher [59, 61] Magicrouter [4] Linux Virtual Server [68] Linux Virtual ONE IP [41] Server [68] LSNAT [92] LSMAC [54] F5 Networks Intel s NetStructure BIG ip [48] Traffic Director [62] Foundry Networks Nortel Networks ServerIron [51] Alteon 780 [76] Cyber IQ s Foundry Networks HyperFlow [39] ServerIron [51] HydraWEB s Radware s WSD Hych a2500 [60] Pro [85] Coyote Point s Equalizer [37] ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load sharing using IP Network Address Translation. RFC 2931, 1998. 53

....request data. It determines the most available cache proxy, and assigns the new connection to this machine. This usually involves changing the destination IP address of the connection s packets to the internal IP address of that machine through a process known as NAT (Network Address Translation) [9]. Both director types have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of a Layer 4 director is that it is much less loaded: unlike a Layer 5 director, that needs to participate in two TCP connections in order to serve each request, the Layer 4 director needs to perform only NAT and IP ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT). RFC-2391, Aug. 1998.

.... lets a network with privately allocated addresses communicate with the Internet at large, while other forms let IPv6 only and IPv4 only hosts interoperate [9, 15] Translators can also protect a local network from intrusion, similar to a firewall, or loadbalance requests between a set of servers [12]. Other uses have been proposed, such as creating network redundancy [7] NAT has disadvantages too, such as adding points of failure (due to the state translators must generally maintain) breaking the uniqueness of IP addresses, and violating the Internet s end to end philosophy [6] IPv6 ....

....fresh packet, describe the fresh packet that needs to be rewritten. The mapping helper is expected to choose a new mapping, install that mapping into rewriter, and return it. RoundRobinIPMapper can, for example, implement virtual servers through load sharing network address translation, or LS NAT [12]. In LS NAT, a single, wellknown IP address often the address of the network address translator actually refer to a pool of servers. As requests arrive at the well known server, a translator rewrites them and sends them off to one server from the pool. Responses from the pool servers are ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT). RFC 2391, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ rfc/rfc2391.txt.

....among other applications. This demonstrates how the Click framework and its design methodology can inspire novel and flexible solutions to real routing problems. Firewalls, load balancers, address port translators, and transparent proxies each act as network address translators, or NATs [15, 45, 46]. A network address translator modifies passing packets network addresses and, optionally, their port numbers, or even data to achieve some network level goal, such as allowing many machines to share a limited number of IP addresses. The network address translators we consider can examine ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT). RFC 2391, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2391.txt.

....IP security [19] or output link scheduling [8] Such libraries can run on top of the NetTap API. Applications may easily specialize or modify user level libraries. For example, applications such as NAT (network address translation) 13] or LSNAT (load sharing using IP network address translation) [29] might modify a user level IP implementation. NetTap applications may run with real time priority to obtain guaranteed performance regardless of other load (e.g. host applications) on the system. Real time priorities are always greater than time sharing priorities. FreeBSD has supported ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. "Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation." IETF, RFC 2391, Aug. 1998.

....scheduling and resource management in gateways is becoming as important as in hosts. Gateways no longer simply forward packets; they increasingly also need to run applications such as routing protocols, network management [10] firewalling, Network Address Translation (NAT) 15] load balancing [22], reservation protocols [4] or billing [12] Extensible routers [21] and active networks [9] suggest a number of other ways in which it may be advantageous to run application specific code on gateways. LRP s use in these modern gateways faces two problems. First, LRP s early demultiplexing does ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. "Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT)." IETF, RFC 2391, Aug. 1998.

....IP security [16] and output link scheduling [7] These libraries run on top of the NetTap API. Applications may easily specialize or modify NetTap s libraries. For example, applications such as NAT (network address translation) 11] or LSNAT (load sharing using IP network address translation) [24] might modify NetTap s user level IP implementation. We expect that NetTap platforms will typically be dedicated to an application and have little need for time sharing scheduling. If multiple threads of control are needed, NetTap applications may use POSIX (user level) threads, so as to avoid ....

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. "Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation". IETF, RFC 2391, Aug. 1998.

No context found.

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT). RFC 2391, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/ rfc2391.txt.

No context found.

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan. Load sharing using IP network address translation (LSNAT). RFC 2391, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998.

No context found.

Srisuresh, P., and Gan, D. Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT). Request for Comments RFC 2391 (August 1998).

No context found.

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan (1998). Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT), RFC2391. http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgibin /rfc/rfc2391.html

No context found.

P. Srisuresh and D. Gan, "Load Sharing using IP Network Address Translation (LSNAT)", RFC2391, August 1998.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC