Sohgo Takeuchi <sohgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>
>> I'm running ldirectord with
>> http://hg.linux-ha.org/agents/rev/6e8b562f5414 applied for better IPv6
>> support. Basically, it works fine, thanks for implementing this. But I
>> wonder whether there's a fundamental reason for not allowing IPv4 and
>> IPv6 virtual services with the same fwmark, like
>> which results in
>> Error  reading file /etc/ldirectord.cf at line 15: duplicate virtual
>> if tried. Is this only an overzealous sanity check in ldirectord, or
>> are iptables and ip6tables fwmarks actually related somehow?
> Thanks for the report.
> When I enhanced the IPv6 support of ldirectord, I forgotten to
> take care about this case. I also think that ldirectord should
> support this case.
Great, and thanks for taking care of IPv6 support in ldirectord!
So what do you think about my patch? Not that I feel strongly about
it, but I'd better stop using it if it's broken...
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
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