|
Feri,
We are still going through full testing of IPV6 for our next release
Loadbalancer.org appliance v7 (vanilla 2.6.34 kernel).
No major problems found yet, we will come back to the list if we hit
anything....
On 4 June 2010 23:21, Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Julius Volz <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Sounds like a good idea! So:
>
> Dear lvs-users,
>
> did you experience any breakage as a result of switching on
> CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6? I mean apart from it having incomplete
> functionality. The gist of the question is whether this option
> is suitable for generic distro kernels or not, cf. above.
> --
> Thanks for your time,
> Feri.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
>
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
--
Regards,
Malcolm Turnbull.
Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779
http://www.loadbalancer.org/
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
