From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
To: Dmitry Krivenok <krivenok.dmitry@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, willy@meta-x.org, const-g@xpert.com,
girouard@us.ibm.com, ctindel@ieee.org,
mitch.a.williams@intel.com
Subject: Re: Question about 802.3ad bonding mode.
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:32:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22242.1406568767@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJN_NGY-u+rB1eBHV8XgdXPzwd2tQSmAf_=ZWFu2yob48siXzw@mail.gmail.com>
Dmitry Krivenok <krivenok.dmitry@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>I have two physical NICs bonded into bond0 interface with bonding
>mode=4 (i,e, 802.3ad).
>Both NICs are connected to the same switch and switch ports are *not*
>configured in "lacp" mode.
[...]
>I have IP address configured on bond0 and from what I see it's fully
>working. I can ping it from various hosts, I can ssh to that host,
>etc. From user perspective it works just fine except that there is no
>LAG...
>
>Is that correct behavior of dynamic link aggregation via LACP?
>Shouldn't it be configuration error? Is it 802.1ax compliant?
Your system is behaving correctly; there is a backwards
compatibility mechanism in the standard.
Essentially, if there is no LACPDU exchange, the affected links
are marked as "Individual" (as opposed to "Aggregatable"), which means
that those links become members of an aggregator with exactly one
member: that link.
Then, when the active aggregator to use for traffic is selected,
if all links are Individual, then one of those is selected, and there is
then one link that works for communication with the partner system.
This is done intentionally to permit communication from a system
configured for LACP to a system that is not so configured.
This is mentioned at a high level in IEEE 802.1AX section 5.1.2
(j), the Individual vs Aggregatable is in 5.3.5 and 5.3.6, the treatment
of Individual links is in 5.3.9, and 5.4.12 says, in part:
If no LACPDU is received before the current_while timer expires
again, the state machine transits to the DEFAULTED state. [...]
This allows configuration of aggregations and individual links
when no protocol Partner is present, while still permitting an
active Partner to override default settings. [...]
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-28 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-28 14:59 Question about 802.3ad bonding mode Dmitry Krivenok
2014-07-28 17:32 ` Jay Vosburgh [this message]
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=22242.1406568767@localhost.localdomain \
--to=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
--cc=const-g@xpert.com \
--cc=ctindel@ieee.org \
--cc=girouard@us.ibm.com \
--cc=krivenok.dmitry@gmail.com \
--cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@meta-x.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).