|
Hello,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Kyle Sparger wrote:
> I figured this might be on-topic. I don't think that LVS handles this
> correctly, but I could be wrong. Anybody know? :) Is is it not even a
> concern? It seems like it would be to me...
Yes, it is not handled. ip_fw_unmasq_icmp is not changed
from LVS. But the problem occurs when external_MTU > internal_MTU
in the Director which is not an usual case for LVS. The other case
when the client has little MTU is handled. The result is:
- no problems for clients
- the server works or don't works entirely. I think this
could be visible. So, the problem is that the Director doesn't
generate ICMP to the real servers. But the ICMP messages from
clients are propagated to the real servers.
Of course, this must be corrected in next versions.
The only PMTUdisc problem in 2.2 in the server side
is for the clients accessing 2.2 MASQ server which uses
ports not in the reserved range (portfw, mfw, autofw). This
is a known bug from long time ago which is not fixed yet.
LVS at least don't hurts its clients, only the
real servers in VS/NAT.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
