On Thursday 31 May 2007 02:02:16 Salim S I wrote: > 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. Shure! :-), my fault, not looking at headers, my wish was always to write to the list. > If you had done that, I wouldn't have had to do the "Top-Posting". Take > a look at the archives please. There is no reason to do Top-Posting, if i've missed the cc to the list, you still can do a normal innline reply. But all this is getting OT in this list. > On Wednesday 30 May 2007 00:58:18 you wrote: [snip] > 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'. You mention online gaming and IM protocols, and there is nothing special about that. What im triyng to say is that CONNTRACK+CONNMARK solves that problem for you. You can have IM(msn,jabber,yahoo,aol) connected all day long without problems, or you can do online gamming too, or have an ssh session for weeks. CONNTRACK has the avility to track tcp(ammong others) flows and to remember an ESTABLISHED connection. Then you can use CONNMARK to MARK an ESTABLISHED connection with an unique tag based on the provider that it use. Then, every time you see the same MARK on that ESTABLISHED connection you assure that it will be routed over the same original provider. Full example here: http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2006q2/018964.html > 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 > >> 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? The scenario that you mention is a bad/incomplete setup, so do not spect that it will work right. > Btw, your being a netadmin doesn't automatically make your statements > correct. Which make my statement correct is the fact that in my networks there are not all the problems that you mention in your post. > >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. Is not about ego, sorry if you take this personal, it is not my intention, i speak rude because this list get heavly indexed by google, and it is taked as good advice for many answer seekers. You afirm that Linux cannot handle load balancing properly and this is completly WRONG and is bad advertising and a lie. Since 2.4 series has been avaible the greats julian's patchs[1], and then in 2.6.12 CONNMARK has get in mainline, and with a litle of setup all connection problems related to load balancing get perfectly solved. > >> 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. i hope is answered now. [1]http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ -- Luciano _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
