LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Hidden patch

To: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Hidden patch
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:47:53 +0300 (EEST)
        Hello,

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Joseph Mack wrote:

> Horms wrote:
> > it is perfectly valid to
> > have the same IP address on more than one interface at the
> > same time.
>
> thanks.
>
> Is there a reason why you'd want to do this or is it just not
> forbidden and therefore allowed (I beleive this is called the American
> philosophy)

        Exactly, as long as one IP is unqiue you can add it to
all your interfaces with the hope one will survive the netdev
down events :))) Note that some softwares are not happy with this.
They panic and don't know how to interprete the duplicated IPs.
The case with the hidden flag is similar, there are 2 variants:

- return HIDDEN when at least one of the IPs is hidden

- return NOT_HIDDEN when at least one of the IPs is not hidden

        It even works correctly in this particular case:

Hide addresses attached to this device (assume "lo") from another
devices (assume "eth0"). Sorry for the bad english.

> Joe

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>