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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:26 PM To: Salim S I Subject: Re: 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
