2008/8/22 Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 金, 8月 22, 2008 at 07:29:50午前 +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 06:15:07PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
>> > >> What is not supported with IPv6:
>> > >> - handling fragmentation or other extension headers
>> > >> - FTP application helper (can be loaded, but only operates on v4)
>> > >> - sync daemon (can be started, but only operates on v4)
>> > >
>> > > Other than the packet format of the sync deamon, are there any
>> > > fundamental restrictions here? If we extended the sync daemon,
>> > > could it work? If so, perhaps we could rev the sync deamon protocol
>> > > and fix a few other kinks, like the handling of timeouts and the
>> > > general lack of extendability, at the same time.
>> > There shouldn't be any fundamental restrictions, it's just a piece of
>> > the puzzle that I could easily leave out of the picture for now.
>> > I haven't studied the sync daemon closely yet, but one thing I was
>> > briefly wondering about was whether we should just blow up the
>> > addresses in struct ip_vs_sync_conn to be of type union nf_inet_addr
>> > (probably not acceptable, wasting too much bandwidth for v4 entries)
>> > or how to send differently sized entries based on the IP version in a
>> > clean way. But it sounds like you'd want to redesign a lot of that
>> > anyways? I'm glad to help with anything, I just don't know this code
>> > as well as you or Sven, but I'll study it more. Maybe you can share
>> > some ideas on the extensibility you want to see?
>> What I was thinking is that any change
> Sorry, I forgot to finish this sentance :-(
> What I was thinking was that any change would introduce a
> protocol incompatibility. However I think that there is
> some room for small changes to be added using currently unsued
> bits in ip_vs_sync_conn.flags. This could also be used to
> allow syncryonising of timeouts (which is unrelated to IPv6).
There's also a '__u8 reserved' field at the beginning of that struct
which could be used. But in general, is it reasonable to expect both
nodes to use the same kernel version, which gets rid of the
extensibility problems? It's not really an ABI that can't be broken,
> So while my general feeling that the synchronisation protocol
> is not as extendable as it should be stands. We can probably
> work with the current protocol for now.
Yes, without jumping through hoops, we have to probably break the
current protocol anyways for new features? Even if we designated
unused fields for new information, an old kernel will not look at them
/ fill them out, which limits the possibilities...
Google Switzerland GmbH
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html