> Oh, *that* kind of load balancing. I thought you meant *outbound* load
> balancing, which is a recurring request here.
Ahh .... I get what you were thinking ... sorry I thought I made it
pretty clear but there is always room for interpretation :-)
Though that kind of connection load balancing would be cool now that you
mention it to though and you could configure an optional interface as a
second wan port!
> If the data passes through the program, even unmodified, it's a proxy.
> The page you linked to calls it a proxy. Even in concept, this requires
> converting the data from packets to a stream and back to packets. Doing
> this entirely in the kernel wouldn't be cheap, and doing it in userland
> adds context-switching overhead and additional copying. Applying this to
> most traffic on a modest-performing machine that's also the firewall and
> NAT router could create a bottleneck.
This is the one that I was actually trying. It appears to just bounce
(read as port forwarding) a connection rather than answer and proxy
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pythondirector/ At least that's what the
docs I was reading suggested.
For all intents and purposes it looks like it's just doing intelligent
port forwarding based on a couple of different algorithyms.
The problem is that adding python and associated stuff would end up
being way to much
> A more efficient method would be with "smart NAT", but I don't think
> that's possible without kernel support, even if the actual decisions are
> made in userland. An API for "userland-controlled NAT" would have a
> number of uses, though.
> > > Not to mention being pretty useless without multiple WAN interfaces. :-)
> > Are you on crack ... why would load balancing be useless without
> > multiple wan interfaces? If your sole purpose for doing this was high
> Misunderstanding. See above.
Sorry I wasn't trying to offend I was just a little confused byt the