[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e21a2d9682b5d83fefe3f09a07316033@luffy.cx>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:53:48 +0100
From: Vincent Bernat <bernat@...fy.cx>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: <zenczykowski@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: nonlocal_bind and IPv6
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:06:00 -0500 (EST), David Miller wrote:
>> OoO En ce milieu de nuit étoilée du vendredi 16 décembre 2011,
>> vers
>> 04:58, Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com> disait :
>>
>>> why not simply use the IP_TRANSPARENT or IP_FREEBIND socket
>>> options?
>>
>> Because this requires modifying each affected software. This
>> can be
>> difficult if you don't have the source code available.
>
> But it means that it would work on every single kernel verion out
> there.
Sure. But... The typical scenario for this setting is when you are
using something like VRRP. You have your web server running on several
nodes and only one of them has the appropriate IP address at the given
moment. Moreover, you have to bind to specific IP and not 0.0.0.0 for
other reasons (for example, when using several SSL virtualhosts).
Starting the web server only when a node gets the appropriate IP is not
possible because it increases downtime. Since this VRRP stuff is related
to system configuration, it seems sensible to have a system setting
equivalent to IP_FREEBIND socket options. This is ip_nonlocal_bind.
Moreover, I am just adding the IPv6 version of this setting. The IPv4
version already exists.
--
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