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.
