[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100630044854.GA16564@verge.net.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:48:57 +0900
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Michal Humpula <michal.humpula@...rydum.cz>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nonlocal_bind & IPv6
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:42:16PM +0200, Michal Humpula wrote:
> 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?
My suspicion is that its just an oversight. A good way to either get it
fixed or have the idea buried would be to send some patches.
--
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