Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+lvs\s+tun\s+and\s+ipip\s+fragments\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+lvs\s+tun\s+and\s+ipip\s+fragments\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Kelsey Cummings <kgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:18:17 -0700; Julian, I haven't had time to test the patches yet but wanted to at answer your questions. I'm pretty sure the only reason I set 'old_iph->frag_off = 0' was to cause the following "if" statement to e; /html/lvs-users/2012-07/msg00011.html (10,888 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:49:24 +0300 (EEST); Hello, I read RFC 2003 and the first result of this is the appended patch. I will keep it for a while also here: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/tmp/0001-ipvs-implement-passive-PMTUD-for-IPIP-packets.txt I'll; /html/lvs-users/2012-07/msg00002.html (26,005 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:19:39 +0300 (EEST); Hello, I prefer the solution with dest mode flag. The forwarding method is restricted to 3 bits (IP_VS_CONN_F_FWD_MASK) and I don't want to allocate new value there. IIRC, these bits are already used; /html/lvs-users/2012-06/msg00045.html (10,643 bytes)
4. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Kelsey Cummings <kgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:08:29 -0700; Any thought's on this Julian? I think this would be a good enhancement for LVS. -- Kelsey Cummings - kgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx sonic.net, inc. System Architect 2260 Apollo Way 707.522.1000 Santa Rosa, CA 95; /html/lvs-users/2012-06/msg00044.html (9,695 bytes)
5. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Kelsey Cummings <kgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:24:33 -0700; Exactly! The other way would be do define a new packet forwarding method like 'ipip with frags' perhaps with -I to ipvsadm. I think it really comes down to what you guys think is most consistent with; /html/lvs-users/2012-05/msg00013.html (10,049 bytes)
6. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 01:14:35 +0300 (EEST); Hello, ipip_tunnel_xmit() uses such logic to disable the PMTUD with nopmtudisc flag in the ip tool. May be we can do the same, the question is how to provide this flag, may be with IPVS_DEST_ATTR_NO_; /html/lvs-users/2012-05/msg00011.html (12,552 bytes)
7. Re: [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Kelsey Cummings <kgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:38:39 -0700; Anyone? Am I worrying too much about potential problems with MSS fixup and PMTPD not working correctly and/or being prone to failure through operator error (which is what I'm actually the most concer; /html/lvs-users/2012-05/msg00006.html (9,087 bytes)
8. [lvs-users] lvs tun and ipip fragments (score: 1): Author: Kelsey Cummings <kgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 17:36:24 -0700; Issues with LVS-Tun, PMTUD and MSS fixup seem to come up periodically. We want to use LVS-Tun but do not want to end up in a situation where we're relying on functional PMTUD or selective MSS fixup o; /html/lvs-users/2012-05/msg00001.html (10,453 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]