|
Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:44:32PM +0900, Sohgo Takeuchi wrote:
>>
>> From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> virtual=1
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> virtual6=1
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> which results in
>>>>>
>>>>> Error [21297] reading file /etc/ldirectord.cf at line 15: duplicate
>>>>> virtual server
>>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>
>> I've used your patch. It works good in my environment too.
>> Thanks for the patch!
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> Ferenc are you happy to have this patch included in ldirectord
> which is GPLv2 licensed code?
Yes, absolutely.
--
Thanks,
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
|
