From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [patch net-next V2] bond: have random dev address by default instead of zeroes Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:31:32 -0800 Message-ID: <22106.1359138692@death.nxdomain> References: <542237717.4200599.1359136587903.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andy@greyhouse.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com, Jiri Pirko To: Pavel Simerda Return-path: Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:36386 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752806Ab3AYSbm (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:31:42 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:31:42 -0700 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984DC3E40040 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:31:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r0PIVckP026676 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:31:38 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r0PIVY4l013589 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:31:35 -0700 In-reply-to: <542237717.4200599.1359136587903.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com