From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [patch v2 03/12] [PATCH 03/12] IPVS: compact ip_vs_sched_persist() Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:08:50 +0900 Message-ID: <20101002080850.GC2248@verge.net.au> References: <20101001143517.645421976@akiko.akashicho.tokyo.vergenet.net> <20101001143941.949669349@akiko.akashicho.tokyo.vergenet.net> <20101002022050.GA16593@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julian Anastasov Cc: lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Engelhardt , Stephen Hemminger , Wensong Zhang , Patrick McHardy On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 10:56:19AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Hello, > > On Sat, 2 Oct 2010, Simon Horman wrote: > > >> Here dport: > >> > >>>+ dport = dest->port; > >> > >> should be: > >> > >> dport = ports[1]; > >> if (dport == svc->port && dest->port) > >> dport = dest->port; > > > >Thanks, fixed. > > I'm still wondering, may be it needs separate patch > but we do not support NAT to different dest->port in the > case for fwmark. May be the above logic can be changed to > support it. By this way web to different VIPs and VPORTs > in a single virtual service (fwmark) can use single NAT > real server for name-based virtual hosting. But such change > can create compatibility problems for setups that used > different vports for the fwmark service and still expect > it in that way (vport to same dport). Hi Julian, I think that this sounds line a new flavour of fwmark virtual services to me. Perhaps yet another flag is in order? To be clear, what you have in mind is essentially to nat *:* (as matched by a fwmark) to x:y, where as at this time *:y may be natted to x:y.