On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ok, so no change for now. Julius -- Julius Volz - Corporate Operations - SysOps Google Switzerland GmbH - Identification No.: CH-020.4.028.116-1 -- 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
