On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 13:26 +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Hi, > > netdev wasn't particularly interested, but Julius Volz, the author of > this code directed me to the lvs-users mailing list. Nobody reported > any problem since then, but I got a success report, see > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/163055/focus=11035 > > I also got a personal reply from Rob Gallagher. Quoting him: > > > From: Rob Gallagher <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Subject: Re: Is CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6 still/really dangerous? > > To: Ferenc Wagner <email@example.com> > > Cc: Julius Volz <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:56:53 +0100 > > > > We've been using IPVS with IPv6 on our mirror site, ftp.heanet.ie, for > > nearly a year now. > > > > The only major issue we encountered was with mtu discovery for some > > users on IPv6 tunnels, however this was quickly resolved with a patch > > from Julius that has since gone into the mainline kernel. > > The referenced patch is commit 94b26551: IPVS: Add handling of incoming > ICMPV6 messages, which is seems to be already present in the Sid kernel. > > Based on the above, I don't think there are known problems with this > option. While it's untested on the wider scale, it seems to work for > those using it. Please consider enabling it, or tell me how I could > help researching this further. Thanks for the information. This will be enabled in the next version. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part