Re: Peer to peer connection between softether servers
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:49 pm
If you have a managed switch at each storage site, then you can create a simple many-to-many SoftEther topology and squelch traffic loops using STP at each switch. (STP also facilitates multi-link clustering and is discussed elsewhere in this forum.)
If not, then you could create a point-to-point SoftEther link for each replication partnership. Suppose that you have three nodes -- Alfa, Bravo, Charlie -- in the storage cluster:
* On Alfa: tap_to_bravo (192.168.1.0/24), tap_to_charlie (192.168.2.0/24)
* On Bravo: tap_to_alfa (192.168.1.0/24), tap_to_charlie (192.168.3.0/24)
* On Charlie: tap_to_alfa (192.168.2.0/24), tap_to_bravo (192.168.3.0/24)
This looks unsophisticated, but it will be reliable, avoid routing problems, and never loop traffic. To prevent address sprawl, mDNS and RFC 3927 link-local addresses would work just as well.
If the only P2P traffic will be GlusterFS, then a direct SSL tunnel through a forwarded port on a DDNS address is probably better than using SoftEther.
SoftEther is best for a star topology; mesh topologies not-so-much.
If not, then you could create a point-to-point SoftEther link for each replication partnership. Suppose that you have three nodes -- Alfa, Bravo, Charlie -- in the storage cluster:
* On Alfa: tap_to_bravo (192.168.1.0/24), tap_to_charlie (192.168.2.0/24)
* On Bravo: tap_to_alfa (192.168.1.0/24), tap_to_charlie (192.168.3.0/24)
* On Charlie: tap_to_alfa (192.168.2.0/24), tap_to_bravo (192.168.3.0/24)
This looks unsophisticated, but it will be reliable, avoid routing problems, and never loop traffic. To prevent address sprawl, mDNS and RFC 3927 link-local addresses would work just as well.
If the only P2P traffic will be GlusterFS, then a direct SSL tunnel through a forwarded port on a DDNS address is probably better than using SoftEther.
SoftEther is best for a star topology; mesh topologies not-so-much.