|
Julian Anastasov wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Ben North wrote:
> > [...] I never received a satisfactory answer to why the patch was
> > never incorporated into the main LVS code.
>
> The main problem is that we are not happy with the netfilter
> design. OTOH, your work covers particular case (NAT) ignoring the fact
> that there are other methods available. There are so many issues that
> need to be handled, do you have time for this?
I don't, no. You're right, of course; at Antefacto we only used the NAT
version of LVS, and I don't know how much impact the patch would have on
the other versions.
> I'm now looking at linux-2.4.19-ipvs-1.0.7-antefacto.patch. I assume
> you will maintain this code if it is incorporated because I'm not sure
> someone has the ability to test it carefully, you know, IPVS is now
> both in 2.4 and 2.6 mainstream, there are already so many tools that
> will cry on the smallest compatibility problem.
Sorry if I wasn't clear --- I don't have the time, equipment, etc. to
maintain the patch any more. (I hadn't realised that IPVS was now
included in mainstream kernels; that's cool.)
> > Also, I tried to explain very carefully exactly what it did and why.
> > This was the purpose of the README I sent in. So the keeper of the
> > official code would not have been 'blindly' incorporating a bunch of
> > random code.
>
> Can you send me link to the current docs and patches so I can
> take a look?
Vinnie has pointed out a couple of documents.
> In any case, I need your comments on these things first:
> [...]
There are many good points there. I apologise if I underestimated the
amount of work required to fold the functionality into the main code.
In a separate message Julian also wrote:
> OK, I'm in process of porting the patch, I now have to port the FTP part
> before continuing with the tests.
That's great news; many thanks, Julian. I hope that the notes I made at
the time are of some help. The FTP part I think might be more awkward
because I think the main kernel changed the API for registering
"expected" connections recently. I think the main idea should stay
pretty much the same though. Let me know if you think I might be able
to explain anything in more detail.
Good luck,
Ben.
|
