Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[TwinCLinG] Re: frontend servers back end servers

Expand Messages
  • theju
    ... Woah! I thought only google groups was very bad at managing spam [1][2]. Somehow, I felt that I was very harsh after sending out the email and my apologies
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 25, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ilughyd@yahoogroups.com, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@...> wrote:
      >
      > theju [26/11/09 02:59 -0000]:
      > >Is this some kind of a joke?
      > >First, instead of starting a new thread you use an existing and unrelated
      > >thread to ask your question.
      >
      > My fault - though it reached the list, it seems to have got held up as
      > "suspected spam" by yahoogroups for some reason. Yahoogroups being silly I
      > guess. I released the email .. then realised it'd already been posted to
      > the list.
      >

      Woah! I thought only google groups was very bad at managing spam [1][2]. Somehow, I felt that I was very harsh after sending out the email and my apologies to the sender.

      [1] http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/
      [2] http://lawgon.livejournal.com/72363.html

      Cheers
      Theju
    • rajesh kodali
      Hi, I don t know how this got reposted. The responses worked for me and I have also completed the project. I don t know how this has been re-posted .. Sorry if
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 26, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        I don't know how this got reposted. The responses worked for me and I have also completed the project. I don't know how this has been re-posted .. Sorry if it is a mistake from my end.




        ________________________________
        From: theju <thejaswi.puthraya@...>
        To: ilughyd@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, 26 November, 2009 8:29:59 AM
        Subject: [TwinCLinG] Re: frontend servers back end servers


        Is this some kind of a joke?
        First, instead of starting a new thread you use an existing and unrelated thread to ask your question.
        Second, you have asked this question[1] a couple of days ago and people have responded and you simply repost your previous question without any changes as if no one responded.

        What are you trying to imply?

        [1] http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ ilughyd/message/ 20666

        PS: Sorry to top-post on this one.

        --- In ilughyd@yahoogroups .com, rajesh kodali <rajeshkodali@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > I have a specific requirement that ther should be one server
        > that is facing the external world. with ip xx.xx.xx.xx and mapped to
        > dns hosts 1.server.com, 2.server.com and 3.server.com
        >
        > when the server receives request for 1.server.com: 80 then the request has to be sent to internal server 1 on privet ip example 192.168.0.1: 80
        >
        > when server receives request for 2.server.com: 80 then the request has to be sent to 2 on private ip 192.168.0.2: 80
        >
        > so on
        >
        > So how does iptables recognize hostname for port translation instead of ip as the external server has the same ip.
        >
        > Can this be attained by iptables or should we use any other like apache. The scenario is explained by image attached.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.