On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Lincoln Dale wrote:
> it sounds like squid's WCCP implementation and/or TCP stack isn't ensuring
> that the total packet size (advertised TCP MSS + ip-header size + tcp
> header size) is less than the MTU.
Gee - Squid has it's own TCP stack ?
I always thought that it uses the host OS TCP/IP stack - be it
*BSD,Linux,Solaris or <whatever>
- Rafi
>
> remember that WCCP is based on layer-4. if fragmentation can occur prior
> to the WCCP intercept, things can "go bad".
>
> squid isn't unique in not ensuring that the TCP MSS is set to a reasonable
> value; many other commercial cache vendors get this wrong too, no matter
> how many times i've told them. :-(
>
>
> cheers,
>
> lincoln.
>
> At 12:04 PM 17/03/2001 +0800, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have WCCPv1 working between a 7206 with 12.0.14(S), and squid 2.3stable4,
> >*if* the clients are on the leased lines connected directly to the 7206.
> >A redirect-list controls the clients to redirect by IP.
> >
> >For clients on other routers that point default to the 7206, it works for
> >a while, and then later on they fail. The end-users' web sessions just stall.
> >The hits on the access-list counters stop increasing, and the squid access
> >log stops registering requests coming from them.
> >
> >Any ideas as to what to look at?
> >
> >If this really won't work by design, then I'd have to enable WCCP on the
> >access routers/RAS's. If the remote RAS is at a location without any cache
> >server, is it a good idea to make it point to a distant squid server? Or
> >should the two be "close" or on the same LAN?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >http://www.internet.org.ph The Philippine Internet Resource
> >Mobile Voice/Messaging: +63-917-810-9728
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:32 EDT