From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:38:05 +0200 Message-ID: <485126BD.7030109@trash.net> References: <48501C81.6010800@trash.net> <4850233E.7090501@trash.net> <48502826.9060502@trash.net> <48503BBD.6000307@google.com> <485043E6.5030105@candelatech.com> <485050FE.6030209@google.com> <20080612014548.GE22358@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Julius Volz Cc: Simon Horman , Vince Busam , Ben Greear , lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Julius Volz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008, Simon Horman wrote: >> Eventially the changes settled down, and for the past few years they >> have been very infrequent. But the problem that the interface isn't >> really extendable and that when changes are made kernel and ipvsadm >> versions need to be incremented together remains. For instance, the >> Debian package of ipvsadm actually shipps three different ipvsadm >> binaries, and a wrapper works out which one to use based on the kernel >> version. > > Ugh. > >> I wonder if now would be a good time to bite the bullet and design >> a new interface that is extendable. > > If we really have to break it once for IPv6 anyways, it seems like a > good opportunity. Depends on how invasive the changes would need to > be, of course... You don't need to break the old interface, just add an additional one. > You probably already have some ideas on what a better interface would > look like? Especially, how to design it for future backwards > compatibility? And would it still use sockopts or rather one of the > other communication mechanisms? I'd suggest genetlink or nfnetlink.