Comments on: AWS High Availability on NAT instances https://blog.bluemalkin.net/aws-high-availability-on-nat-instances/ A blog about DevOps technologies, tips and tricks. Wed, 02 Oct 2024 03:08:46 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 By: Tom Murphy https://blog.bluemalkin.net/aws-high-availability-on-nat-instances/#comment-33891 Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:48:29 +0000 http://blog.bluemalkin.net/?p=37#comment-33891 Hello,
For production applications ideally they should use a forward proxy over a NAT cluster. However some applications do not support proxy settings, in which case a NAT cluster is preferred.
I believe you are confused between a NAT and forward proxy.

]]> By: VD https://blog.bluemalkin.net/aws-high-availability-on-nat-instances/#comment-22045 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:28:44 +0000 http://blog.bluemalkin.net/?p=37#comment-22045 Hi Tom,
Thanks for the article.
When you mention
“However, if you need NATing for production-critical applications where a proxy server isn’t enough for outgoing traffic,” What exactly are you referring to?
I believe the Squid based NAT scales based on network metrics, so under what circumstances the solution based on bash script is better? what are the pros/cons of either approach. The squid based NAT also seem to be multi-AZ, fault tolerant and scalable.

The squid based NAT is described here. https://aws.amazon.com/articles/5995712515781075
As you stated in the article above, the selfhealing NAT is over here. http://aws.amazon.com/articles/2781451301784570

]]>