Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> writes: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:44:32PM +0900, Sohgo Takeuchi wrote: >> >> From: Ferenc Wagner <wf...@niif.hu> >> >>> 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... >> >> 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. -- 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
