On 7/15/21 7:04 PM, Mark Gray wrote:
> On 15/07/2021 15:29, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>> On 7/15/21 3:54 PM, Mark Gray wrote:
>>> On 15/07/2021 14:16, Mark Michelson wrote:
Hi Mark,
>>
>> Hi Mark, Mark,
>>
I'm a bit curious about this change. Does the removal of the protocol
from th
On 15/07/2021 15:29, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 7/15/21 3:54 PM, Mark Gray wrote:
>> On 15/07/2021 14:16, Mark Michelson wrote:
>>> Hi Mark,
>
> Hi Mark, Mark,
>
>>>
>>> I'm a bit curious about this change. Does the removal of the protocol
>>> from the match mean that traffic that is not of the p
On 7/15/21 3:54 PM, Mark Gray wrote:
> On 15/07/2021 14:16, Mark Michelson wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
Hi Mark, Mark,
>>
>> I'm a bit curious about this change. Does the removal of the protocol
>> from the match mean that traffic that is not of the protocol specified
>> in the load balancer will be ct_d
On 15/07/2021 14:16, Mark Michelson wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm a bit curious about this change. Does the removal of the protocol
> from the match mean that traffic that is not of the protocol specified
> in the load balancer will be ct_dnat()'ed? Does that constitute
> unexpected behavior?
>
Y
Hi Mark,
I'm a bit curious about this change. Does the removal of the protocol
from the match mean that traffic that is not of the protocol specified
in the load balancer will be ct_dnat()'ed? Does that constitute
unexpected behavior?
On 7/15/21 8:14 AM, Mark Gray wrote:
When adding two SB
When adding two SB flows with the same vip but different protocols, only
the most recent flow will be added due to the `if` statement:
if (!sset_contains(&all_ips, lb_vip->vip_str)) {
sset_add(&all_ips, lb_vip->vip_str);
This can cause unexpected behaviour when two loa
