From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Simerda Subject: Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:42:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1136817119.4224160.1359142921330.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> References: <22106.1359138692@death.nxdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andy@greyhouse.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com, Jiri Pirko To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.25]:47435 "EHLO mx4-phx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752284Ab3AYTnK (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:43:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <22106.1359138692@death.nxdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jay Vosburgh" > To: "Pavel Simerda" > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andy@greyhouse.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com, > "Jiri Pirko" > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:31:32 PM > Subject: Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes > > Pavel Simerda wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Jay Vosburgh" > >> but I don't think it should be changed. > > > >Just a short question. Is there any reason for bonding interfaces to > >behave differently from bridging interfaces in this respect? > > To clarify, what I don't think should change is that a manually > set MAC on the bonding master should override the automatic copy of > the > first slave's MAC to the bonding master. The fail_over_mac active > and > follow settings are an exception to this, but those are special cases > for unusual network hardware. > > As for the random MAC vs. zero MAC, I've always thought that the > all zero MAC was a clear indicator that the device (the bonding > master > in this case) was not in a usable state (in the sense that it could > not > send or receive actual traffic). It's not a really big deal, though, > so Thanks for clarification. > if the trend these days is for everything to have a MAC all the time, > that's fine, as long as doing so doesn't break anything. > > I think the patch under discussion should be fine with the > addition of the last notifier call previously discussed. Some > documentation updates would be nice, too. > > -J > > --- > -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com > >