From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Julius Volz" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:31:56 +0200 Message-ID: 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-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Vince Busam" , "Ben Greear" , "Patrick McHardy" , lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Simon Horman" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080612014548.GE22358@verge.net.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 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? Julius -- Google Switzerland GmbH