Re: [lvs-users] IPv6 vs IPv4 fwmark services

To: Sohgo Takeuchi <sohgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] IPv6 vs IPv4 fwmark services
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:08:02 +0100
Sohgo Takeuchi <sohgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>
>> I'm running ldirectord with
>> applied for better IPv6
>> support.  Basically, it works fine, thanks for implementing this.  But I
>> wonder whether there's a fundamental reason for not allowing IPv4 and
>> IPv6 virtual services with the same fwmark, like
>> virtual=1
>>   [...]
>> virtual6=1
>>   [...]
>> which results in
>> Error [21297] reading file /etc/ at line 15: duplicate virtual 
>> server
>> if tried.  Is this only an overzealous sanity check in ldirectord, or
>> are iptables and ip6tables fwmarks actually related somehow?
> Thanks for the report.
> When I enhanced the IPv6 support of ldirectord, I forgotten to
> take care about this case. I also think that ldirectord should
> support this case.

Great, and thanks for taking care of IPv6 support in ldirectord!
So what do you think about my patch?  Not that I feel strongly about
it, but I'd better stop using it if it's broken...

Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>