Julius Volz <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In commit fab0de02fb0da83b90cec7fce4294747d86d5c6f CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6 is >> described as: >> >> Add IPv6 support to IPVS. This is incomplete and might be dangerous. >> >> I agree its implementation is incomplete. But I wonder if it's really >> dangerous in the sense that generic distribution kernels shouldn't >> enable it, because it can break unrelated (eg. IPv4 IPVS) functionality. >> >> What does that warning mean today? Isn't it out of date? > > I wrote the IPv6 support back in the day, but never used it > large-scale. Rob Gallagher from HEAnet was doing some bigger > experiments with it, but I'm not sure how far it went. CCing him. > > There are probably some other people out there that have tested it > extensively. Maybe try the lvs-users and lvs-devel mailing lists?
Sounds like a good idea! So: Dear lvs-users, did you experience any breakage as a result of switching on CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6? I mean apart from it having incomplete functionality. The gist of the question is whether this option is suitable for generic distro kernels or not, cf. above. -- Thanks for your time, Feri. _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
