From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chris Friesen" Subject: Re: dhcp/bonding interaction question Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:15:38 -0600 Message-ID: <48D986AA.6030400@nortel.com> References: <48D90A30.8000701@nortel.com> <6323.1222188151@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> <48D924A5.4070701@nortel.com> <21694.1222193834@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from zrtps0kn.nortel.com ([47.140.192.55]:50352 "EHLO zrtps0kn.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751462AbYIXAQM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:16:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <21694.1222193834@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jay Vosburgh wrote: > Chris Friesen wrote: > Ok, so your problem (if I'm understanding things correctly) is > really a chicken-and-egg type of deal. Your entire network is all > etherchannel, except for this blade, which needs to connect, > temporarily, in a non-etherchannel manner in order to boot up and become > etherchannel-ified (at which point it'll work). Basically, yes. > One possible problem with hacking the dhcpd to send back out on > the receiving interface is that (because of the etherchannel) there's no > general guarantee that the switch paths are symmetrical, particularly if > a port is down somewhere. True. > If you're already rolling your own kernels, would it be easier > to remove the xid interface check from the kernel's dhcp client (i.e., > accept the DHCP reply as if it had arrived on the proper interface for > its xid)? You could make it into some kind of "netboot_on_etherchannel" > option. Yes, this is being considered as well. Initially I was against it due to the possibility of introducing unexpected behaviour, but making it a boot argument makes a lot of sense, especially since it would allow for more robust behaviour on certain fault scenarios. Thanks, Chris