Bug 1232036
Summary: | radosgw-agent can't use IPv6 destination | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage | Reporter: | Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda> |
Component: | RGW | Assignee: | Alfredo Deza <adeza> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | ceph-qe-bugs <ceph-qe-bugs> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 1.3.1 | CC: | adeza, cbodley, ceph-eng-bugs, flucifre, hnallurv, kbader, kdreyer, mbenjamin, owasserm, sweil, vakulkar |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Rebase |
Target Release: | 1.3.3 | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | radosgw-agent-1.2.3-1.el7cp | Doc Type: | Rebase: Bug Fixes and Enhancements |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-09-29 22:18:43 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1230323, 1262054 |
Description
Yehuda Sadeh
2015-06-15 22:57:23 UTC
Document in release notes. Workaround: specifying a host name with and associated ipv6 address should work. We will also need to drop Python 2.6 support because urlparse does not support IPV6 in 2.6 (In reply to Alfredo Deza from comment #4) > We will also need to drop Python 2.6 support because urlparse does not > support IPV6 in 2.6 From a 1.3 product perspective, this is fine. RHEL 7 ships Python 2.7.5, and Ubuntu Trusty ships Python 2.7.6. And those are the only platforms that 1.3.0 supports. We are now issuing a warning only that this will not work in Python 2.6 and that hostnames should be a fine workaround. Pull request with changes at https://github.com/ceph/radosgw-agent/pull/31 merged commit 1afb6e0 into master I think we should tag and release a new version upstream with these changes. Alfredo, Yehuda, should we go with "v1.3" ? the currently released version is 1.2.2, this was a minor bugfix (no functionality was added), would you object to 1.2.3 ? I can get this built/pushed today. (In reply to Alfredo Deza from comment #9) > the currently released version is 1.2.2, this was a minor bugfix (no > functionality was added), would you object to 1.2.3 ? No objection - that would be excellent. 1.2.3 has been released both to PyPI (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/radosgw-agent) and the ceph package repos. Moving to 1.3.2. We believe this to be fixed in the latest version of the RHCS 1.3 product; closing. |