On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:37:33PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote: > Julius Volz wrote: >> Since IPVS now does partial IPv6, should we finally move it from >> "net/ipv4/ipvs" to "net" or to "net/netfilter"? I posted that patch a >> long time ago, but that was before any of the actual v6 features, so >> there was probably no interest. > > Whatever the netfilter people want is fine with me. > >> Also, the tunables in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/vs/... apply to both v4 and >> v6. Should we just duplicate them into /proc/sys/net/ipv6/vs? Or will >> people be confused that setting a value in one directory changes the >> value in the other and affects both IP versions? > > If we do any duplication of sysctl tunables under net.ipv4 into net.ipv6, > we need to follow the same policy for all of them. Since the tcp > tunables in net.ipv4 are among the most documented and used, and have > been for a decade, we need to be conservative with that. Having two > different writable tunables for the same variable is certain to confuse. > Having read-only aliases under net.ipv6 wouldn't terrify me, but the last > time I went to do tcp tuning, and saw that the tunables in net.ipv4 > weren't duplicated under net.ipv6, it was obvious what was going on at > first glance, without needing to do an ls -l to figure out what was going > on. People who prefer to use sysctl rather than manually tweaking > pseudofiles might not notice the permissions right away. By the > principle of least confusion, I think omitting them entirely is probably > the way to go. If thats a standard practice, than that sounds reasonable to me. -- Simon Horman VA Linux Systems Japan K.K., Sydney, Australia Satellite Office H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en -- 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
