[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006262242.16346.michal.humpula@hudrydum.cz>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:42:16 +0200
From: Michal Humpula <michal.humpula@...rydum.cz>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nonlocal_bind & IPv6
On Saturday 26 of June 2010 15:25:40 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:10:08PM +0200, Michal Humpula wrote:
> > Ok, more detail example.
> >
> > Let on each node be an apache (just for an example), and you configure
> > VirtualHost for specific IP. So when node A fails, keepalived move IP to
> > the node B and everything is still running. No need for restart of apache
> > or anything else. There is a probably a better solution, but I can't find
> > anything more simple than the posted patch:)
>
> Not an answer to your original question, but that sounds like a problem
> that can be resolved using IP_TRANSPARENT. Although I have only tested
> that feature in conjunction with IPv4, it seems to support IPv6 too.
>
> See Documentation/networking/tproxy.txt
Thanks for redirection. I don't think that IP_TRANSPARENT is suited well for my problem,
but I did find the IP_FREEBIND in the process. Unfortunately it seems that both are
enabled only for IPv4 and IPv6 mapped addresses.
So, is there any reason why IP_FREEBIND or nonlocal_bind sysctl is not in current IPv6
kernel implementation?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists