|
Julius Volz <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> In commit fab0de02fb0da83b90cec7fce4294747d86d5c6f CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6 is
>> described as:
>>
>> Add IPv6 support to IPVS. This is incomplete and might be dangerous.
>>
>> I agree its implementation is incomplete. But I wonder if it's really
>> dangerous in the sense that generic distribution kernels shouldn't
>> enable it, because it can break unrelated (eg. IPv4 IPVS) functionality.
>>
>> What does that warning mean today? Isn't it out of date?
>
> I wrote the IPv6 support back in the day, but never used it
> large-scale. Rob Gallagher from HEAnet was doing some bigger
> experiments with it, but I'm not sure how far it went. CCing him.
>
> There are probably some other people out there that have tested it
> extensively. Maybe try the lvs-users and lvs-devel mailing lists?
Sounds like a good idea! So:
Dear lvs-users,
did you experience any breakage as a result of switching on
CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6? I mean apart from it having incomplete
functionality. The gist of the question is whether this option
is suitable for generic distro kernels or not, cf. above.
--
Thanks for your time,
Feri.
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
