Sohgo Takeuchi <so...@sohgo.dyndns.org> writes: > From: Ferenc Wagner <wf...@niif.hu> > >> I'm running ldirectord with >> http://hg.linux-ha.org/agents/rev/6e8b562f5414 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/ldirectord.cf 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... -- Thanks, Feri. _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requests to lvs-users-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
