From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: send IPv6 neighbor advertisement on failover Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:34:58 -0400 Message-ID: <48EF6812.2090600@hp.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Sidorenko , David Miller , fubar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Simon Horman , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: David Stevens Return-path: Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:30362 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756368AbYJJOfE (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:35:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Stevens wrote: >> I don't see any way to address David Steven's comment since there is >> currently no NA tunable in the IPv6 code. > > Brian, > How do you feel about doubling up with dad_transmits for that > part? I don't really want to since this is bonding-specific behavior, and we're not performing DAD for the address. This is just another sysfs entry: /sys/class/net/bond*/bonding/num_unsol_na, not a sysctl. > At least the switch/cache updating portion is the same > in both cases. I don't think they are. In the DAD case we're probing for another node that might have the address configured, in the bond failover case we want to update the switch quickly so we don't drop packets. -Brian