Add qualification of 'optional' providers

git-svn-id: https://shorewall.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/shorewall/trunk@4431 fbd18981-670d-0410-9b5c-8dc0c1a9a2bb
This commit is contained in:
teastep 2006-08-26 15:49:12 +00:00
parent 23b6c19f94
commit 22ee728855

View File

@ -343,21 +343,19 @@
traffic is going out through only one provider, you may
need to install a kernel built with
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=n. Several users have
reported that this change has corrected similar
problems.
</para>
<para>
The SUSE 10.0 kernel is subject to this problem, and
<ulink
url="https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190908">
a kernel oops may result in this circumstance.</ulink>
SUSE 10.1 and SLES 10 have
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=n set by default.
The source of the problem seems to be <ulink
url="http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c00da01c5b35a%24b12b9860%241b00a8c0%40cruncher%3e">an
incompatibility between the LARTC patches and
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED.</ulink>
</para>
reported that this change has corrected similar
problems.</para>
<para>The SUSE 10.0 kernel is subject to this problem, and
<ulink
url="https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190908">
a kernel oops may result in this circumstance.</ulink>
SUSE 10.1 and SLES 10 have
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=n set by default. The
source of the problem seems to be <ulink
url="http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c00da01c5b35a%24b12b9860%241b00a8c0%40cruncher%3e">an
incompatibility between the LARTC patches and
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED.</ulink></para>
</important>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
@ -381,6 +379,15 @@
<para>Shorewall will determine of this interface is up and
has a configured IPv4 address. If it is not, a warning is
issued and this provider is not configured.</para>
<note>
<para>'optional' is designed to detect interface states
that will cause <command>shorewall start</command> or
<command>shorewall restart</command> to fail; just because
an interface is in a state that Shorewall can [re]start
without error doesn't mean that traffic can actually be
sent through the interface.</para>
</note>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
</variablelist>
@ -769,4 +776,4 @@ gateway:~ #</programlisting>Note that because we used a priority of 1000, the
</section>
</section>
</section>
</article>
</article>