On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 02:14:12PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: > >> I'm actually looking at that case now (4856c84c1358b, but with the fix > >> above). It seems that the NAT isn't working (DR works, by the way!). > >> At least the first packet arriving at the real server still has the > >> client's IP as the source (in the v6 case)... > > > > Ok, I'm looking at NAT with 4856c84c1358b + that fix too too, > > but on v4 :-) > > > >> Let's wait with reverting the local client patches until tomorrow... > >> maybe I can find the problem until then. > > > > Ok, I was just concerned that this might hold up merging > > your code into Dave's tree for too long, thats all. > > Ok, with my last patch (and your two/three last ones reverted), I get > everything working except IPv6 with a local client... Ok, that is good news :-) Sorry for the stuff up. That bugus ip_route_me_harder() call was caused by me trying to merge the IPv6 patches with the local client patches. I'm not so concerned about IPv6 local not working for now - its a combination of two new features. And hopefully we can iron it out in the not to distant future anyway. I'll drop CSUM2/3 and 3/3 for now, they aren't essential and it really ought to be a matter of (me) sitting down and fixing some correctness issues. Its the end of my day now. I'll try and update lvs-next-2.6 into a working state in the morning. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html