Thanks for your update. I've tried to apply these to a vanilla 2.6.35.4 kernel and I'm getting a lot of rejects (a few successes). What kernel do these patches apply to please?
Best Regards On 08 December 2011 09:42 Simon Horman Wrote: >I believe that the patch you are after is "ipvs: changes for local real >server". > > >http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs.git;a=patch;h=fc6047676 >13b6d2036cdc35b660bc39451040a47 > >Looking over the logs, you may also want to consider the following >subsequent patches: > >* ipvs: changes for local client > >http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs.git;a=patch;h=cb59155f2 >1d4c0507d2034c2953f6a3f7806913d > >* ipvs: restore support for iptables SNAT > >http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/horms/ipvs.git;a=patch;h=afb523c54 >718da57ff661950bd3287ec9eeb66bd > >> I'm trying to get the behaviour working on a rhel/centos 6 kernel which is >based on 2.6.32. >> >> To my unpractised eye the differences between ipvs on vanilla 2.6.32.4 and >2.6.35.4 do not seem too great. It seems involved on adding SCTP support. >> I'm hoping (probably futile) that I might be able to use the files in the url >above with little or no alteration. >> Is that a vain hope? > >There do seem to be some more changes, but nothing that seems particularly >relevant. > >> Also to clarify, the new behaviour is that for ipvs nat to a IP on the >> node, the application needs to listen on the RIP and not the VIP? > >If you use the MASQ forwarding mechanism and the RIP is a local IP address >on the director, then it will be handled locally. >In this case the RIP and the VIP may be the same address. _______________________________________________ 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
