On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Ok, so no change for now.
Julius Volz - Corporate Operations - SysOps
Google Switzerland GmbH - Identification No.: CH-020.4.028.116-1
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