|
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:52:19PM +0800, Wensong Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Horms wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 12:36:37AM +0800, Wensong Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Horms wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, it's probably good to do it in the user-space, because it's hard for
> > > the kernel to know which nat helper to load if users run services
> > > different from the default ports.
> >
> > That is what I thought too. Do you have any objections to
> > the patch that I sent through, other than the minor
> > bug in a comment that Sebastien Bonnet found.
> >
>
> I almost have no objection to your patch, because few people run other
> services at port 21. However, it is not a perfect solution, because it
> only check and bind ip_vs_ftp to port 21, people may run ftp service
> at other ports, still need run "modprobe ip_vs_ftp ..." too. So, I am a
> little bit hesitating to release a ipvsadm version for kernel 2.4 with
> your patch. :)
>
> Julian and I used to plan the --app/--helper option in specifying a
> virtual service, in which the application helper is bound to virtual
> service. It's probably a little bit better. We may need to investigate it
> again on the next devel branch.
I don't really think that helps. Because people still have
to know to use the --add/--helper option. And a lot of
the problem is that people don't realise that ftp needs
a helper.
While I think your idea is a good one I don't think
that it addresses the problem at hand - making life
easy for people who just want a standard port 21 ftp
service to work.
--
Horms
|
