From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bonding: ban stacked bonding support Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:02:17 -0700 Message-ID: <28755.1426885337@famine> References: <22754.1424474040@famine> <20150320174308.GA2005@p183.telecom.by> <20150320174638.GA2053@p183.telecom.by> <20150320.163845.164991966900600650.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: adobriyan@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:52025 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750977AbbCTVCX (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:02:23 -0400 In-reply-to: <20150320.163845.164991966900600650.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: >From: Alexey Dobriyan >Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:46:38 +0300 > >> If you add bonding master as a slave, and then release it, >> it will no longer be an IFF_BONDING creating problems like described at >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89541 >> >> echo +bond1 >/sys/class/net/bonding_masters >> echo 1 >/sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/mode >> echo +bond2 >/sys/class/net/bonding_masters >> echo +bond2 >/sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/slaves >> echo -bond2 >/sys/class/net/bond1/bonding/slaves >> echo -bond2 >/sys/class/net/bonding_masters >> >> cat /proc/net/bonding/bond2 # should not exist >> [oops] >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan > >I feel like this has been brought up before and it was stated that >some people are actually using things like this. > >I could be mistaken. I don't think you are. I did a bit of checking after the discussion last month and found a few relatively recent statements that people were nesting bonds and it was apparently working, e.g., http://www.alexwitherspoon.com/debian-nested-bonded-interfaces/ which, ironically, is exactly the case that would benefit from not nesting the bonds, as 802.3ad would handle multiple aggregators itself. However, there is also this discussion http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2011/01/22/66 from netdev in 2011 that states that the ingress path of nested bonds does not work, at least for the case described. Perhaps some configurations work and some don't. Let me see if I can run a quick test and see if this actually works for me... -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com