| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.4/2.6 PATCHES] Change some ip_fragment checks to help IPVS |
| From: | Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:01:29 +0300 (EEST) |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20031014155152.275270c1.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello,
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> > One related question: is ip_fragment() backport from 2.6
> > to 2.4 planned?
>
> No, it only makes sense in the 2.6.x stack.
>
> 2.4.x and 2.6.x networking are wildly different beasts and
> you'll therefore need to make the IPVS implementation cope
> with that in each tree.
ok. But my subject is wrong. In fact, it covers
the general case of forwarded packets after calling ip_defrag.
It means, for example, that if ip_conntrack is running in 2.4 then all
packets with total_length>mtu are refragmented or linearized. This
includes the case with 60k packets containing frags where each frag fits
in mtu. But I see, it is a dangerous place to change.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 6to4/SIT and IP DF, Pekka Savola |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Re: 6to4/SIT and IP DF, mika.penttila |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2.4/2.6 PATCHES] Change some ip_fragment checks to help IPVS, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2.6] ethtool_ops eeprom stuff, Feldman, Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |