Re: [lvs-users] localnode question

To: Dean Scothern <dean.scothern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] localnode question
Cc: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:42:02 +0900
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:45:53AM +0000, Dean Scothern wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a little confused when you talk about 'the patch'
> Is this the section that is relevant:

A patch is a method of describing changes to a tree of source code.
I believe that the patch you are after is "ipvs: changes for local real server".;a=patch;h=fc604767613b6d2036cdc35b660bc39451040a47

Looking over the logs, you may also want to consider the following
subsequent patches:

* ipvs: changes for local client;a=patch;h=cb59155f21d4c0507d2034c2953f6a3f7806913d
* ipvs: restore support for iptables SNAT;a=patch;h=afb523c54718da57ff661950bd3287ec9eeb66bd
> I'm trying to get the behaviour working on a rhel/centos 6 kernel which is 
> based on 2.6.32.
> To my unpractised eye the differences between ipvs  on vanilla and 
> do not seem too great. It seems involved on adding SCTP support.
> I'm hoping (probably futile) that I might be able to use the files in the url 
> above with little or no alteration.
> Is that a vain hope?

There do seem to be some more changes, but nothing that seems particularly

> Also to clarify, the new behaviour is that for ipvs nat to a IP on the
> node, the application needs to listen on the RIP and not the VIP?

If you use the MASQ forwarding mechanism and the RIP
is a local IP address on the director, then it will be handled locally.
In this case the RIP and the VIP may be the same address.

Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

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