On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:40 +0200, Maxim Bourmistrov wrote: > Hi list, > is there any reason for MTU on pfsync0 to be limited to 2048?
yes, when pfsync(4) was written, there was only one mbuf cluster pool: MCLBYTES (2048) sized one. now we have several. > Any benefit from having it lager, say up to 9000? > it should be possible to send out more updates at once therefore calling output routines less often. there might be delay concerns though -- this should be investigated. > I enabled MTU 9000 on syncdev and tried on pfsync0. but does it work? are you getting state updates? you should have lots of states to verify that huge packets actually get sent out. btw, what's mtu size of your syncdev interface? > As seen in tcpdump now, sync pkts are large but not as large as > 9000(2048 limit). > > //maxim
