On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:37:02PM +0100, Ed W wrote: > Hi > This specific feature isn't high on my personal priority list, > but I'm keen to see kernel 3.0 supported, so see this as some > sponsorship towards that. > I will fund 1/nth of the total cost (for n>4). I'm assuming that > at least 3 others will step up to cover the other (n-1/n) th? > Personally my priorities are to have the existing 2.6.38 feature > set on 3.0 (with pax...) planned feature sets on 3.x (besides the 2.6.38.x ones) are: - improved network isolation (routing hash) - improved filesystem attributes and visibility - improved warning system (fine control, rate limit?) - integrated device namespace/mapper just to get an idea what we are up to for 3.x, the IPv6 isolation would of course fit nicely into that feature set thanks, Herbert > Thanks again for vserver! > Ed W > On 28/07/2011 13:56, Herbert Poetzl wrote: >> IPv6 ::1 isolation is considered the equivalent to >> the currently implemented 127.x.y.1 lback (re)mapping >> which allows multiple guests to use isolated 127.0.0.1 >> by mapping 127.0.0.1 to a placeholder IP (127.x.y.1) >> and back so that services can bind to separate addresses >> this is done in a transparent way so that the guest >> always sees 127.0.0.1 >> a similar approach with certain dedicated IPv6 ips >> should (at least in theory) provide the equivalent >> for IPv6 (good candidates come from the IPv4 mapped >> range, the link local fe80::/10, and the unique >> local fc00::/7 range) >> the basic mapping (forward and backward), the kernel >> interface changes (to support setting the IPv6 lback) >> and the necessary changes to generate the auto lback >> will roughly take 25-35 hours of work, including basic >> testing >> of course, testing done by folks actually using IPv6 >> (I'm still using IPv4 for almost everything) would >> be necessary to iron out issues, but I guess that will >> be gladly provided by the interested parties :) >> I can work at a hourly rate of 50 EUR for this specific >> project (excluding taxes) and provide an invoice. >> there are no guarantees that this will actually work >> but all code checks and discussions done with IPv6 >> folks so far make me believe that it will just work >> like the IPv4 lback isolation. >> pleas use this thread to coordinate if you want this >> feature to be implemented (target kernel is 3.0 unless >> the overwhelming majority wants a different branch) >> many thanks in advance, >> Herbert