From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: send IPv6 neighbor advertisement on failover Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:08:42 -0400 Message-ID: <48ED67AA.9020002@hp.com> References: <48ED03A6.2060705@hp.com> <1223504558.22343.15.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Stevens , Alex Sidorenko , David Miller , fubar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Simon Horman , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org, Vladislav Yasevich To: Sridhar Samudrala Return-path: Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:1183 "EHLO g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751182AbYJICIs (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 22:08:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1223504558.22343.15.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 15:01 -0400, Brian Haley wrote: >> David Stevens wrote: >>> Well, actually, it looks like I'm suggesting you to re-use something that >>> doesn't >>> exist. :-) >>> >>> MLD (and IGMP) has such a thing where unsolicited advertisements are sent >>> multiple times, with delays in between, to account for lossy networks >>> possibly >>> dropping the first one. There are configurable counts associated with >>> probes >>> and retransmit intervals for solicits, but I don't see the equivalent yet >>> for >>> unsolicited NA's. >> I don't see an equivalent either, since the only unsolicited NA the >> kernel sends is for DAD, which uses dad_transmits. > > Doesn't DAD use neighbor solicitation rather than unsolicited NA? Yes. There is one case in the NS code that will respond with an unsolicited NA if we get a NS doing DAD. I guess I should have made it clearer that it's when we're defending our address during a DAD probe. > Can we use NS in the bonding failover scenario too? Both and NS and NA seemed to update the switch, so either one can be sent on a failover event. It seemed to be the consensus that the NA was more appropriate, especially since we can send it without the solicited bit set. -Brian