From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262200AbVCPAwT (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:52:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262201AbVCPAwT (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:52:19 -0500 Received: from palrel13.hp.com ([156.153.255.238]:26786 "EHLO palrel13.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262200AbVCPAwQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:52:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4237833E.9080809@hp.com> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:52:14 -0800 From: Rick Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John W. Linville" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ctindel@users.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.11] bonding: avoid tx balance for IGMP (alb/tlb mode) References: <20050315215128.GA18262@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20050315215128.GA18262@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Is that switch behaviour "normal" or "correct?" I know next to nothing about what stuff like LACP should do, but asked some internal folks and they had this to say: treats IGMP packets the same as all other non-broadcast traffic (i.e. it will attempt to load balance). This switch behavior seems rather odd in an aggregated case, given the fact that most traffic (except broadcast packets) will be load balanced by the partner device. In addition, the switch (in theory) is suppose to treat the aggregated switch ports as 1 logical port and therefore it should allow IGMP packets to be received back on any port in the logical aggregation. IMO, the switch behavior in this case seems questionable. FWIW, rick jones