Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:20:07 GMT
From:      Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
To:        freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: kern/114095: [carp] carp+pf delay with high state limit
Message-ID:  <201110171320.p9HDK7mW025124@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/114095; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
To: Ermal Lu?i <eri@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: nerijus.ambrazas@ktu.lt, freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: kern/114095: [carp] carp+pf delay with high state limit
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:17:42 +0400

 On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
 E> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 4:20 PM,  <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote:
 E> > Synopsis: [carp] carp+pf delay with high state limit
 E> >
 E> > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 E> > State-Changed-By: glebius
 E> > State-Changed-When: Sat Oct 15 14:20:00 UTC 2011
 E> > State-Changed-Why:
 E> > Not a bug. This is a feature. pfsync(4) suppresses carp(4)
 E> > preemption until new recently booted node downloads full
 E> > table of pf(4) states from its peer.
 E> 
 E> This is not true on FreeBSD.
 E> The issue might be from other reasons.
 
 This is a surprise for me that this feature had been removed!
 
 It used to be in stable/6:
 
 http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=FREEBSD60;i=carp_suppress_preempt
 
 And I always treated that variable in CARP as shared with pf. Why did
 they removed this feature from pfsync?
 
 P.S. Since PR is about 6.2-RELEASE, then I have closed it correctly.
 
 -- 
 Totus tuus, Glebius.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201110171320.p9HDK7mW025124>