RE: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter

["Salim S I" <salim.si@cipherium.com.tw>]

Before we get into the "Top-posting" stuff, it would be nice if you
follow the normal way of replying (or atleast marking a copy) to the
list. I think that is the basic idea behind mailing list.
If you had done that, I wouldn't have had to do the "Top-Posting". Take
a look at the archives please.

-----Original Message-----
From: Luciano Ruete [mailto:luciano@lugmen.org.ar] 
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:26 PM
To: Salim S I
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Multihome load balancing - kernel vs netfilter

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 00:58:18 you wrote:
First of all, learn about basic[1] mailing list rules, mainly your 
top-posting[2] is breaking all the sense of the thread

>> Sorry, but it doesn't work that way

>yes it does.
Up to you if you refuse to accept, doesn't matter for me if you choose
to live in your little world.


>> CONNMARK needs helper modules like the ones for FTP or H.323 to
really
>> know if connections belong to the same session. To cover all gaming
and
>> IM apps with own helper modules is practically impossible. 

>this helpers are needed because some special protocols have special
needs, >all 
>other protocols are covered in a simpler maner bye flowing the tcp flow

>between two ports, you need al least a litle low level knowldge about
layer 
>3-4 protocols to undestand this.

Yessir. 3 bags full.
If you had read my post c l e a r l y, before you felt obliged to show
off your knowledge, you might have understood that I was talking about
the so-called 'special-protocols'.
Btw, thanks for that bit about "TCP flow between two ports", was quite
new to me.


>> I remember 
>> even MSN have had problems (timeout every 5 mins), but it seems to
have
>> been fixed at the server level.

>With CONNMARK solution 99,99% of the things works, i am the
sys/net-admin >from 
>an ISP that proves it,  whit load balancing over multiple links.

Sorry again! That figure of '99.99' is in YOUR case, but are you aware
there are others in this world too, with different scenarios/setups? You
did not think Peter and I were dreaming up a scenario,did you?
Btw, your being a netadmin doesn't automatically make your statements
correct.

>For each protocol that are not covered by simple tcp flow a helper
module >was 
written. 
It must be a well kept secret then!
I am sorry to say this, if your knowledge was half the size of your ego,
it would have been good for us all. 


>> Could you please point out if I had missed any open discussion in the
>> list which covers these things?

>just google(ie): "connmark site:lartc...archive"

Thanks for introducing google. But my question still stands.





_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc