From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: Adding IPv6 support to IPVS: some general questions about kernel development Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:20:05 +0900 Message-ID: <20080401052003.GC21127@verge.net.au> References: <47F123C5.70804@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Julius Volz Return-path: Received: from koto.vergenet.net ([210.128.90.7]:43746 "EHLO koto.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752821AbYDAFUG (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 01:20:06 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:29:30PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > net/ipvs or net/netfilter/ipvs sound fine. The second is probably > > better since at some point we should try to merge the duplicated > > conntrack functionality if possible. > > Sure, since IPVS is basically a netfilter extension, that sounds good > to me. Could all the IPv4- and IPv6-specific functionality (as opposed > to the commonly used code) also end up in there or would that still > have to reside under ipv[4,6]/...? > > Does it seem wise to do this move as the first thing in this process? > That would probably be a good starter exercise to get to know the > whole process! I think that sounds like an excellent idea. net/netfilter/ipvs sounds fine to me, though think that IPVS is fairly loosely tied to nefilter, so if it was only up to me I would go for net/ipvs. -- Horms