|
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 02:14:12PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
> >> I'm actually looking at that case now (4856c84c1358b, but with the fix
> >> above). It seems that the NAT isn't working (DR works, by the way!).
> >> At least the first packet arriving at the real server still has the
> >> client's IP as the source (in the v6 case)...
> >
> > Ok, I'm looking at NAT with 4856c84c1358b + that fix too too,
> > but on v4 :-)
> >
> >> Let's wait with reverting the local client patches until tomorrow...
> >> maybe I can find the problem until then.
> >
> > Ok, I was just concerned that this might hold up merging
> > your code into Dave's tree for too long, thats all.
>
> Ok, with my last patch (and your two/three last ones reverted), I get
> everything working except IPv6 with a local client...
Ok, that is good news :-)
Sorry for the stuff up. That bugus ip_route_me_harder() call
was caused by me trying to merge the IPv6 patches with the local
client patches.
I'm not so concerned about IPv6 local not working for now -
its a combination of two new features. And hopefully we
can iron it out in the not to distant future anyway.
I'll drop CSUM2/3 and 3/3 for now, they aren't essential and
it really ought to be a matter of (me) sitting down and fixing
some correctness issues.
Its the end of my day now. I'll try and update lvs-next-2.6 into
a working state in the morning.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
