Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Chuck Lever
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 9:24 am

On Feb 18, 2009, at Feb 18, 2009, 8:55 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:

Here's another "me too".

Kernel RPC support also has this problem.  We hit it just a couple of  
weeks ago now that we have IPv6 enabled NFS in prototype.  If PF_INET6  
listener creation fails (eg. because ipv6.ko is blacklisted), our  
workaround right now is to retry the listener socket creation with  
PF_INET.  There are plenty of somewhat rare corner cases that make  
this less than ideal.


A better solution would be to design kernel and user space networking  
to handle this use case, instead of providing a workaround.  From the  
variety of comments I've heard, this use case is pretty common.

Considering the government mandates requiring IPv6 support (and the  
advertisements by Linux vendors claiming IPv6 support), IPv6 needs to  
become a first-class citizen in Linux in fairly short order.  It still  
feels a little piecemeal to me to be called "production ready."

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Andrey Borzenkov, (Tue Feb 17, 10:01 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Andrey Borzenkov, (Tue Feb 17, 11:17 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Brian Haley, (Tue Feb 17, 1:10 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Thomas Backlund, (Tue Feb 17, 1:56 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, David Miller, (Tue Feb 17, 3:29 pm)
Re: [Bonding-devel] 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV ..., Nicolas de Pesloüan, (Tue Feb 17, 3:30 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, David Miller, (Tue Feb 17, 3:51 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Valdis.Kletnieks, (Tue Feb 17, 9:41 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, David Miller, (Tue Feb 17, 10:29 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Roland Dreier, (Tue Feb 17, 10:55 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Frank Blaschka, (Tue Feb 17, 11:55 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Theodore Tso, (Wed Feb 18, 6:55 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Chuck Lever, (Wed Feb 18, 9:24 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Vlad Yasevich, (Wed Feb 18, 11:33 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Brian Haley, (Wed Feb 18, 12:57 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, John Dykstra, (Wed Feb 18, 2:21 pm)
Re: [Bonding-devel] 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV ..., Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Feb 18, 2:29 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, David Miller, (Wed Feb 18, 3:14 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Vlad Yasevich, (Wed Feb 18, 6:11 pm)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Feb 19, 11:15 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Andrey Borzenkov, (Thu Feb 19, 11:19 am)
Re: 2.6.29 regression? Bonding tied to IPV6 in 29-rc5, Jay Vosburgh, (Thu Feb 19, 11:20 am)