From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
Cc: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 802.3ad bonding brain damaged?
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:59:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1312819168.2531.3.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1312790234.7020.26.camel@arkology.n2.diac24.net>
Le lundi 08 août 2011 à 09:57 +0200, David Lamparter a écrit :
> Am Sonntag, den 07.08.2011, 15:52 -0400 schrieb Phillip Susi:
> > - From Documentation/networking/bonding.txt:
> >
> > Additionally, the linux bonding 802.3ad implementation
> > distributes traffic by peer (using an XOR of MAC addresses),
> >
> > This is counter to the entire point of 802.3ad. Distributing traffic by
> > hash of the destination address is poor mans load balancing for
> > systems not supporting 802.3ad.
>
> No, it isn't. 802.3ad/.1AX explicitly requires that no packet
> re-ordering may ever occur, which can only be guaranteed by enqueueing
> packets for one host on one TX interface. This behaviour is mandated by
> 802.1AX-2008 page 15 which reads:
>
> This standard does not mandate any particular distribution
> algorithm(s); however, any distribution algorithm shall ensure that,
> when frames are received by a Frame Collector as specified in 5.2.3,
> the algorithm shall not cause
> a) Misordering of frames that are part of any given conversation, or
> b) Duplication of frames.
> | The above requirement to maintain frame ordering is met by ensuring
> | that all frames that compose a given conversation are transmitted on a
> | single link in the order that they are generated by the MAC Client;
> hence, this requirement does not involve the addition (or
> modification) of any information to the MAC frame, nor any buffering
> or processing on the part of the corresponding Frame Collector in
> order to reorder frames. This approach to the operation of the
> distribution function permits a wide variety of distribution and load
> balancing algorithms to be used, while also ensuring interoperability
> between devices that adopt differing algorithms.
>
It all depends on the definition of 'conversation'
Phillip assumed two (or more) TCP flows from machine A to machine B
could use two different links, while you assert they MUST use a single
link.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-08 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-07 19:52 802.3ad bonding brain damaged? Phillip Susi
2011-08-08 7:57 ` David Lamparter
2011-08-08 15:59 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2011-08-08 16:44 ` Jay Vosburgh
2011-08-08 20:06 ` Phillip Susi
2011-08-08 20:08 ` Chris Adams
2011-08-08 20:14 ` Chris Friesen
2011-08-08 20:32 ` Phillip Susi
2011-08-08 20:42 ` Ben Hutchings
2011-08-09 11:24 ` Benny Amorsen
2011-08-08 20:54 ` Rick Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1312819168.2531.3.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=equinox@diac24.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=psusi@cfl.rr.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox