|
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:37:33PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Julius Volz wrote:
>> Since IPVS now does partial IPv6, should we finally move it from
>> "net/ipv4/ipvs" to "net" or to "net/netfilter"? I posted that patch a
>> long time ago, but that was before any of the actual v6 features, so
>> there was probably no interest.
>
> Whatever the netfilter people want is fine with me.
>
>> Also, the tunables in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/vs/... apply to both v4 and
>> v6. Should we just duplicate them into /proc/sys/net/ipv6/vs? Or will
>> people be confused that setting a value in one directory changes the
>> value in the other and affects both IP versions?
>
> If we do any duplication of sysctl tunables under net.ipv4 into net.ipv6,
> we need to follow the same policy for all of them. Since the tcp
> tunables in net.ipv4 are among the most documented and used, and have
> been for a decade, we need to be conservative with that. Having two
> different writable tunables for the same variable is certain to confuse.
> Having read-only aliases under net.ipv6 wouldn't terrify me, but the last
> time I went to do tcp tuning, and saw that the tunables in net.ipv4
> weren't duplicated under net.ipv6, it was obvious what was going on at
> first glance, without needing to do an ls -l to figure out what was going
> on. People who prefer to use sysctl rather than manually tweaking
> pseudofiles might not notice the permissions right away. By the
> principle of least confusion, I think omitting them entirely is probably
> the way to go.
If thats a standard practice, than that sounds reasonable to me.
--
Simon Horman
VA Linux Systems Japan K.K., Sydney, Australia Satellite Office
H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en
--
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
|
