Re: Should we move IPVS out of net/ipv4 now?

To: Julius Volz <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Should we move IPVS out of net/ipv4 now?
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:37:33 -0400
Julius Volz wrote:
Since IPVS now does partial IPv6, should we finally move it from
"net/ipv4/ipvs" to "net" or to "net/netfilter"? I posted that patch a
long time ago, but that was before any of the actual v6 features, so
there was probably no interest.

Whatever the netfilter people want is fine with me.

Also, the tunables in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/vs/... apply to both v4 and
v6. Should we just duplicate them into /proc/sys/net/ipv6/vs? Or will
people be confused that setting a value in one directory changes the
value in the other and affects both IP versions?

If we do any duplication of sysctl tunables under net.ipv4 into net.ipv6, we need to follow the same policy for all of them. Since the tcp tunables in net.ipv4 are among the most documented and used, and have been for a decade, we need to be conservative with that. Having two different writable tunables for the same variable is certain to confuse. Having read-only aliases under net.ipv6 wouldn't terrify me, but the last time I went to do tcp tuning, and saw that the tunables in net.ipv4 weren't duplicated under net.ipv6, it was obvious what was going on at first glance, without needing to do an ls -l to figure out what was going on. People who prefer to use sysctl rather than manually tweaking pseudofiles might not notice the permissions right away. By the principle of least confusion, I think omitting them entirely is probably the way to go.

-- Chris
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

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