|
At 01:52 98-11-27 -0800, you wrote:
>Thanks a bunch for the fast reply Wensong.
>
>I was thinking, I'd like to help you in whatever ways I can.
>
>I current do security code review for cisco systems. I'd be happy to go
>through your code looking for problems. On the first scan of the code I
>did, (while doing patching) I didn't see anything blaring come to mind,
>but I'd really like to help out in some way.
Thank you.
I think we can make virtual server code better together for Alan Cox's
inclusion. He used to add this virtual server code in 2.0.36pre4 ~
2.0.36pre7, he heard that the code is not stable so he took it out in
2.0.36pre8, he assured that he never crashed with this code on his web
page. It used to confuse me, because he didn't send me the bug report.
Anyway, I don't think this code have no bug, I have fixed a few while
adding new features. :-)
So, there are still lots of things that we can do. We can ask guy who
crashed with the code to report the bugs and fix them, and we can add new
features if we have some good ideas.
>
>That includes hosting, if you need very fast hosting let me know.
Sure, please do it. Tell me your URL, I put it in the mirror list.
Everytime documents or codes are updated, I will let you know.
>
>I'll detail some of the things I'm doing and why your technique for the
>load balancing is so very exciting to me.. if you like.. I've yet to test
>it.. but I think you've given me a way to do loadbalancing of firewalls
>now without the loadbalancer itself being a single point of failure.
If you can let others to know network topology, please write it down, we
can introduce it in the real running examples. :-)
>
>Thankyou!
> Kevin
>
Thank you too,
Wensong
|
