From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422804AbWBNViF (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:38:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422807AbWBNViE (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:38:04 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:53998 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422804AbWBNViD (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:38:03 -0500 Message-ID: <43F24DBA.7090602@am-anger-1.de> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:38:02 +0100 From: Heiko Gerstung User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060120) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: bonding mode 1 works as designed. Or not? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:25672344472c4ac2bbe53bd9833f99fb Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, there! I just set up bonding for a 2.6.12 box in active-backup mode (mode 1) and found out that every packet is duplicated, despite the fact that the documentation (Documentation/network/bonding.txt) says: "active-backup or 1 Active-backup policy: Only one slave in the bond is active. A different slave becomes active if, and only if, the active slave fails. The bond's MAC address is externally visible on only one port (network adapter) to avoid confusing the switch. This mode provides fault tolerance. The primary option affects the behavior of this mode." My understanding of this mode is: eth0 and eth1 are in a bonding group, mode=1, miimon=100 ... eth0 is the active slave and used as long as the physical link is available (checked by using MII monitoring), at the same time eth1 is totally passive, neither passing any received packets to the kernel nor sending packets, if the kernel wants it to do so. As soon as the eth0 link status changes to "down", eth1 is activated and used, and now eth0 remains silent and deaf until it becomes the active slave again. Any comments on that? Is the documentation wrong OR is there a bug in the implementation of the bonding module? Thank you in advance, kind regards, Heiko