On 10/27/08 14:12, Darren Reed wrote: > On 10/27/08 09:21, Kacheong Poon wrote: >> Darren Reed wrote: >> >>> 10 Packet Interception >>> Which packet filtering hook will the ilb code be introducing? >> >> >> No, the current design does not introduce any PF hook >> (assuming you are referring to PSARC 2005/33). > > Why not? Because it did not show up as a high priority requirement . ILB project is multiphased, and in this phase we plan to implement the high priority items.
> Were you planning on introducing some new API for 3rd party > consumers to provide their own load balancing s/w in the kernel? > Not in Phase 1. > >>> Dropping fragmented packets is not acceptable. Talk to >>> the IPsec guys for some tips on mitigating this problem. >>> This will come back to bite us if it is implemented like >>> this. >> >> >> We are aware of several ways to handle this. But we >> opt to defer this. In practice, this should only affect >> UDP traffic. And not supporting fragment should not >> exclude the use of ILB for all UDP apps. So we leave >> this as an RFE for the next phase of the project. > > Correction: in theory this should only impact UDP traffic, > in practice it affects UDP *and* TCP traffic. > > As Kacheong has mentioned handling of fragments will be done post Phase 1 delivery as an RFE. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
