Direct connections to a subnet

All members of a pool must be explicitly specified. Practically, this is not a limitation because pools have few members [which also need to be monitored before designated "up" and allowed to have traffic forwarded to them, which in your (impractical) example, would imply 510 hosts].

I was thinking that would be the answer but was hoping not.

 

 

We have a convoluted network environment; I've have setup an internal server to talk to a Virtual Server on the Big-IP that has a public DNS record associated with it. That VS needs to talk to those 500 odd addresses apparently for an application we're testing to function.

 

 

I guess I'll have to think of another way

 

 

Thanks for clarifying though

You should look into a network forwarding virtual server. When you create a VS instead of selecting "standard" select "Forwarding (IP)" and specify your destination network, in your example 205.2.2.0/23. You'll need to tell hosts on the example 192.168.*.* side of a route to the F5 for traffic destined for the 205.2.2.0/23 network. Hope this helps.

Forgot to mention, a forwarding virtual server doesn't do any load balancing; at this point it's just forwarding traffic. I'm not sure if that was your intention.

Posted By Mel Arviso on 06/12/2012 06:12 AM

 

You should look into a network forwarding virtual server. When you create a VS instead of selecting "standard" select "Forwarding (IP)" and specify your destination network, in your example 205.2.2.0/23. You'll need to tell hosts on the example 192.168.*.* side of a route to the F5 for traffic destined for the 205.2.2.0/23 network. Hope this helps.

 

 

That Mel.

 

I had a look at that but I don't think it'll do what I'm after

 

 

My internal server is on a different network to the Big-IP VS I created.

 

 

We have a complicated network setup