From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb2xhcyBkZSBQZXNsb8O8YW4=?= Subject: Re: Bonding on bond Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:19:45 +0100 Message-ID: <4D492FC1.2030203@gmail.com> References: <4D374A8F.2020303@gmail.com> <20110120153110.GA3931@midget.suse.cz> <4D385F0B.1010000@gmail.com> <4202.1295553193@death> <4D3B60D2.30309@gmail.com> <15526.1296261528@death> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Jay Vosburgh , Jiri Bohac Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:36575 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751677Ab1BBKTs (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 05:19:48 -0500 Received: by fxm20 with SMTP id 20so7838884fxm.19 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:19:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <15526.1296261528@death> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 29/01/2011 01:38, Jay Vosburgh a =C3=A9crit : > Nicolas de Peslo=C3=BCan wrote: [snip] >> However, the ingress path doesn't work at all. bond0 is unable to re= ceive any packets (ARP or IP). > > In light of this, I don't see a problem with disallowing nesting > of bonds. It should be documented in bonding.txt. Ok, I will do that. Jiri, any trouble with me stealing your patch (code) and adding the doc= umentation update part? Or do=20 you prefer to do it yourself? [snip] >> That being said, we still miss a way to achieve a simple configurati= on >> with several links doing load balancing to a switch and one or sever= al >> links doing fail over to another switch, both switches *not* being 8= 02.3ad >> capable. > > This is a harder problem, but it's something that doesn't work > today (and I suspect hasn't for a long time, so if somebody was using > this, I think there would have been some discussion). In the mean time, I will state in the documentation that: - nesting is not allowed. - only the above particular setup would possibly require nesting. - this can be achieve using 802.3ad mode, connected to 802.3ad capable = switches. >> Should we arrange for bonding to be allowed to nest, for this purpos= e, or >> should we find a way to setup this configuration with a single level= of >> bonding ? I would prefer the second, but... > > I'm not sure that either is necessary; 802.3ad will do this > today, and few current production switches lack 802.3ad support. > > Adding support for etherchannel (i.e., not 802.3ad) gang > failover is nontrivial, because the multiple etherchannel port groups > will have to be managed separately, and most likely assigned manually= =2E > Sure, it'd be nice to have, but I'm not sure if it's a benefit worth = the > effort. I'm far from a 802.3ad (802.1AX) specialist, but... wouldn't it be poss= ible to force the aggregator=20 by hand, for every slaves, to achieve the same effect as receiving LACP= DU, when connected to non=20 802.3ad capable switches? echo 802.3ad > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/mode echo +eth0 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves echo +eth1 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves echo +eth2 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves echo 1 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/ad_aggregator_eth0 # those sysfs = entries to be created... echo 1 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/ad_aggregator_eth1 echo 2 > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/ad_aggregator_eth2 > Either way, for now, since I recall you mentioned in another > email that you'd crashed the system from nesting bonds, I don't see a > problem with disallowing nesting and updating the documentation with = a > bit of this discussion (e.g., "nesting doesn't work, you're probably > trying to do gang failover, which 802.3ad already does for you"). Thanks. Nicolas.