On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:54:16PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:04:20PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 09:19:44AM +0900, Keisuke MORI wrote: > > >> The attached patch is to remove libnet dependency from IPv6addr RA > > >> by replacing the same functionality using the standard socket API. > > >> > > >> Currently there are following problems with resource-agents package: > > >> > > >> - IPv6addr RA requires an extra libnet package on the run-time > > >> environment. > > >> That is pretty inconvenient particularly for RHEL users because > > >> it's not included in the standard distribution. > > >> > > >> - The pre-built RPMs from ClusterLabs does not include IPv6addr RA. > > >> This was once reported in the pacemaker list: > > >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/64295#64295 > > >> > > >> The patch will resolve those issues. > > >> I believe that none of Pacemaker/Heartbeat related packages would be > > >> depending on libnet library any more after patched. > > > > > > Hi Mori-san, > > > > > > I will add that libnet seems to be more or less unmaintained. > > > > Someone recently picked it up again, but I'm in favor of the patch for > > the reasons Mori-san already stated. > > > > > You seem to make using libnet optional, is there a reason > > > not to just remove it? portability? > > > > Agreed, lets just drop it. > > Ack. > > BTW, is it correct that most of it could be done by "ip", similar as > IPaddr2 does it? The only think missing would be a send_arp v6. > Anyone want to write an IPv6addr2? ;-)
I believe that the main objection to using "ip" is that it doesn't exist outside of Linux. If you look at the history of IPaddr vs IPaddr2. They are both scripts. The former is based on ifconfig and route, and is portable. IPaddr2 is based on ip is cleaner and probably has better features. There is also a compatibility issue because ip aliases aren't exactly the same as secondary addresses. If we contrast this to IPv6addr, its cross platform, and there seems to be no strong argument for new features (at all, let alone ones that can't be added to the C code). So no, I don't think there is a strong reason for an "ip" based IPv6addr2. And I really wish the IPaddr/IPaddr2 situation didn't exist. _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
