From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferenc Wagner Subject: Re: Is CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6 still/really dangerous? Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:21:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87aarah20p.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> References: <87631y3nr3.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, robert.gallagher@heanet.ie, Julius Volz To: lvs-users@linuxvirtualserver.org Return-path: Received: from tac.ki.iif.hu ([193.6.222.43]:42843 "EHLO tac.ki.iif.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757146Ab0FDWWE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:22:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Julius Volz's message of "Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:14:37 +0200") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Julius Volz writes: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > >> In commit fab0de02fb0da83b90cec7fce4294747d86d5c6f CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6= is >> described as: >> >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Add IPv6 support to IPVS. This is incomplete and might = be dangerous. >> >> I agree its implementation is incomplete. =C2=A0But I wonder if it's= really >> dangerous in the sense that generic distribution kernels shouldn't >> enable it, because it can break unrelated (eg. IPv4 IPVS) functional= ity. >> >> What does that warning mean today? =C2=A0Isn't it out of date? > > I wrote the IPv6 support back in the day, but never used it > large-scale. Rob Gallagher from HEAnet was doing some bigger > experiments with it, but I'm not sure how far it went. CCing him. > > There are probably some other people out there that have tested it > extensively. Maybe try the lvs-users and lvs-devel mailing lists? Sounds like a good idea! So: Dear lvs-users, did you experience any breakage as a result of switching on CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6? I mean apart from it having incomplete functionality. The gist of the question is whether this option is suitable for generic distro kernels or not, cf. above. --=20 Thanks for your time, =46eri.