From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bert hubert Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:08:56 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20041021150856.GA27191@outpost.ds9a.nl> References: <20041020223828.GP19899@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20041021075530.GA1278@infradead.org> <20041021091229.GA3551@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20041021110513.GA21579@outpost.ds9a.nl> <20041021130327.GD3551@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20041021133346.GL3911@marowsky-bree.de> <20041021142527.GG3551@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lars Marowsky-Bree , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Netdev List Return-path: To: Harald Welte Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041021142527.GG3551@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:25:27PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > I'm not a big fan of inventing new kernel/userspace interfaces. We > don't have any associated device, so we don't have any ioctl()s or stuff > like that. Or use netlink. > So instead of introducing a new syscall, I think /proc is just the right > way to deal with this :) Or even more modern, clusteripfs. > Let me give it some testing, I'll re-submit it later today or tomorrow. I'll test it at home to see if it does the right thing too. > > > > And yes, I've received hate mail over this from switch engineers :-) The hate mail originated from a large telco, I think the innovation just offended their sensitive minds. Bert -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO