Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Similar to BZ# 574629, the same/similar problem seems to exist in RHEL 6.0. I have a server configured as a NAT gateway and what I initially believed to be a rule set issue appears to be an issue with the interface itself. The external (ISP in this case) facing interface obtains its address through DHCP and each time it does it the MTU is reset to the X.25 default of 576. This causes significant throughput issues. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): dhclient-4.1.1-12.P1.el6_0.2.x86_64 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install RHEL 6.0 with above version of dhclient 2. Configure an interface to obtain an address through DHCP 3. Execute dhclient and observe the mtu which is set on the interface. 4. Execute "ip link set dev eth0 mtu 1500" 5. Problem fixed. Actual results: MTU is set to 576 on startup or service network restart. Expected results: MTU should be 1500 on startup or service network restart. Additional info: Placing MTU=1500 in the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX file does nothing. dhclient does not seem to read this file and the MTU must be changed as noted above after the inferface is brought up.
Created attachment 482017 [details] set interface MTU only if it's higher than 576 Yes, this is the same problem as bug #574629 (also discussed in bug #566873). I guess your ISP is Comcast or Cablevision ;-) Attached patch solves the problem.
Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team. New Contents: DHCP servers at some ISPs send to clients the "interface-mtu" option with the value of 576. Such a low MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) can cause throughput problems with UDP traffic, among other things. With this update, the dhclient utility now sets the interface MTU only if the value obtained from the server is higher than 576.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0697.html