Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 801894
'Red Hat Cluster Suite' name is incorrect
Last modified: 2014-04-03 08:21:47 EDT
Description of problem:
* Cluster Suite was a RHEL add-on in the RHEL3/4 products; it is called the 'High Availability Add-On' in RHEL5.5+/6+
* The port assignments look correct, although the documentation states that
16851/TCP should also be opened.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): system-config-firewall-1.2.27-5.el
'[ ] Red Hat Cluster Suite'
'[ ] Red Hat High Availability'
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this
request at this time.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
I think you can close this. IIRC, the name is also represented in the CLI tools, and breaking CLI is not worth it.
All parts of system-config-firewall are using this for cli and gui:
_Service("cluster-suite", _("Red Hat Cluster Suite"), [
(5404, "udp"), (5405, "udp"),
_("This option allows you to use the Red Hat Cluster Suite. "
"Ports are opened for openais, ricci and dlm. You need the "
"Red Hat Cluster Suite installed for this option to be "
If we change it, it will get changed everywhere in system-config-firewall.
I have just seen that also the tag of the entry is "cluster-suite". If we change this, then the use of the old name will result in an error. Is it documented (by us or externally) to use "cluster-suite"?
This is what we document (which perhaps isn't ideal; not sure):
However, I think that there's risk that someone is using kickstart (or whatever) and system-config-firewall (lokkit, really) in deployment scripts. That's what I didn't consider when I filed this bug.
# lokkit -s cluster-suite
I'd be worried that changing this would break someone's deployment scripts.
Closing as NOT A BUG due to comment #5.