From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:22:30 -0400 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3D864B96.6D0D43F4@nortelnetworks.com> References: <3D860246.3060609@candelatech.com> <20020916.125555.36549381.davem@redhat.com> <3D8648AE.DD498ECE@nortelnetworks.com> <20020916.140453.72638827.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: greearb@candelatech.com, cacophonix@yahoo.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > From: Chris Friesen > > Okay, that makes me even more curious why we don't send successive > packets out successive pipes in a bonded link. > > This is not done because it leads to packet reordering which > if bad enough can trigger retransmits. > > Scott Feldman's posting mentioned this, as did one other I > think. I did see those posts, but then I saw yours on how the linux receive end does the right thing with regards to reordering, and that confused me. So if I have it right linux-linux could theoretically work okay with a single stream over multiple links (potentially causing lots of reordering), but linux-router would not work well. Chris