It seems to work as long as BOTH sides have equal setup, eg
syncdev and pfsync are set with MTU 9000.
carp: pfsync0 demoted group carp by 1 to 129 (pfsync bulk start)
carp: pfsync0 demoted group pfsync by 1 to 1 (pfsync bulk start)
carp: pfsync0 demoted group carp by -1 to 128 (pfsync bulk done)
carp: pfsync0 demoted group pfsync by -1 to 0 (pfsync bulk done)
pfsync0: flags=41<UP,RUNNING> mtu 9000
priority: 0
pfsync: syncdev: em1 maxupd: 128 defer: off
groups: carp pfsync
//maxim
On 10/24/2011 01:12 PM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Maxim Bourmistrov
<m...@alumni.chalmers.se> wrote:
Hi,
I patched on side of this tandem
do you mean 'one'? then you should obviously patch both.
i mean, come on, you wanted to do some research on
your own, so do it.
and had following setup:
fw1: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 2048
fw2: em0 mtu 9000, pfsync0 mtu 9000
This produced "pfsync: failed to receive bulk update".
If I change back to mtu 2048 states get propagated.
I also changed hardmtu as dlg@ suggested.
it's not immediately clear if you have to change it so
you have to verify both situations.
//maxim
