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

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] IPv6 vs IPv4 fwmark services
From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:04:12 +0100
Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:44:32PM +0900, Sohgo Takeuchi wrote:
>> From: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@xxxxxxx>
>>> 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...
>> I've used your patch. It works good in my environment too.
>> Thanks for the patch!
> Thanks guys,
> Ferenc are you happy to have this patch included in ldirectord
> which is GPLv2 licensed code?

Yes, absolutely.

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>