On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 17:19, Mike Frantzen wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting it's PF's fault (hence the quotes around "broken").
> > If you've followed recent developments, you'd understand the reason
> > Linux NFS doesn't work through normalized PF (scrub) is that the PF
> > developers refused to res
> I'm not suggesting it's PF's fault (hence the quotes around "broken").
> If you've followed recent developments, you'd understand the reason
> Linux NFS doesn't work through normalized PF (scrub) is that the PF
> developers refused to respect the DF bit on fragmented Linux NFS traffic
> without
-
> From: "Jason Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "PF Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:40 PM
> Subject: Linux NFS no-DF status
>
>
> > I don't want anyone's hair to stand on end, but I was just
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 08:59:58PM +0100, Srebrenko Sehic wrote:
> AFAIK, this issue is fixed -current and will be in 3.3.
Yes, the no-df option has been modified in -current so it applies
earlier and also covers fragments with DF (clearing the DF flag), so you
can make these NFS connections work
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 02:40:29PM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:
> I don't want anyone's hair to stand on end, but I was just curious...
> with the clarification recently given by the Linux camp on the
> NFS/DF-bit issue, is there an effort currently under way to recognize
> and support their implement
I don't want anyone's hair to stand on end, but I was just curious...
with the clarification recently given by the Linux camp on the
NFS/DF-bit issue, is there an effort currently under way to recognize
and support their implementation for 3.3 -release? Meaning, PF won't
"break" it anymore?
I don
