[lvs-users] Is ldirectord the right choice for https through and through

Malcolm Turnbull malcolm at loadbalancer.org
Wed Nov 6 21:15:59 GMT 2013


I would have thought it would be happy with all of those requirements
as its pretty application agnostic.
I'd recommend one-arm Direct Routing mode but NAT mode would also be

On 6 November 2013 21:09, Jacob Gibson <jacob.gibblers at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was happily using HAProxy, until I received word that we need to also
> encrypt traffic to the web servers.  So, internet --https--> load balancer
> --https--> web servers.  Would ldirectord be a more appropriate choice?  We
> don't need any Layer 7 rules.
> We do need the following:
> 1) HTTPS all the way through
> 2) Web servers need to see the IP of the user
> 3) Users need sticky sessions to a web server (where the sticky assignment
> counter gets refreshed on each user request)
> 4) HTTPS Keep-Alive support
> 6) Mobile and older browser support (I say this because I keep reading this
> about SNI, but I don't know if that applies to us)
> I believe ldirectord can do #1 and #2, but don't know about #3-#6.
> Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users


Malcolm Turnbull.

Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779

More information about the lvs-users mailing list