Hi,
Thanks a lot, this is working perfectly fine :)
Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 12:30:38 Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I'm cc-ing Marcus Rueckert who first asked me for the feature.
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:07:23PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > Hi Willy!
> >
> > Since it was an easy one, I have sent you a proposal.
>
> Grrr... I just did it too a few minutes ago, sorry for that :-/
>
> > The difficulty is
> > to agree on the default behavior. In my patch, I propose an option
> > which enables "v6 only" when present and "v4 and v6" when absent.
> > Other>
> > possibilities are :
> > - "v6only" and "v4v6" options which override system defaults and we
> >
> > keep system defaults if we don't have any keyword. A
> > configuration
> > working on distribution X won't work on distribution Y.
>
> That's what I've done too. Remember that we don't want to break
> existing setups, so it is out of question to suddenly change the way
> configs have been working for years.
>
> > - "v4v6" option and when absent, bind on IPv6 only.
> >
> > I like the later option better but this is the opposite of what we
> > have now. I feel this is risky to let users upgrade and have a V6
> > only server while they expected to have a V4+V6 server. By doing
> > v4+v6 by default, we break setups relying on system-wide default of
> > v6only but this will be a visible change (HAproxy won't be able to
> > bind the socket).
> I really want to let the system-wide configuration decide when no
> option is set, that's the philosophy we've always followed. We add
> options to force a desired behaviour and without any option, the
> system sets defaults.
> > However, I will be happy to update the patch to have "v4v6" keyword
> > instead of "v6only".
>
> I did not know it was possible to revert the system behaviour, so yes
> please feel free to send such a patch to let the user force
> IPV6_V6ONLY to zero ! "v4v6" seems appropriate to me too.
>
> Thanks,
> Willy
--
Guillaume Castagnino
ca...@xwing.info / guilla...@castagnino.org
