From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:00:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20130125200028.GD1821@minipsycho.orion> References: <542237717.4200599.1359136587903.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <22106.1359138692@death.nxdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pavel Simerda , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andy@greyhouse.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f171.google.com ([209.85.215.171]:50031 "EHLO mail-ea0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751108Ab3AYUAc (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:00:32 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f171.google.com with SMTP id c13so330822eaa.16 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:00:31 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <22106.1359138692@death.nxdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:31:32PM CET, fubar@us.ibm.com wrote: >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 >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. Will do :) > > -J > >--- > -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html