From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15D91392 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 03:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 235C419B3 for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 20:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-24e5d5782edso5106198a91.0 for ; Mon, 08 May 2023 20:16:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683602211; x=1686194211; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7O5bVqTPmrWGonehudouzNCYJCGZ3XVJlk3/Q0pyzsg=; b=Uk8lu45hWzVwePsBbOwQ09pBASB2ubvMpfbBRA5QZnjFl14wJfuFaflcy672+UJIj3 6Y6G1SneNLKT48kgQ+Ou9oFfr13sz1Fxo5cqzUHLKDt+vKRPuLKLhPMN65ljFcXut6I5 zppBCswry3bYAvBStlYIMVcLvUCgHbX0AnfbnTQ4C4/wOygknCoHYLfwprhxEYI+NPjy OMgO3/RtIaAdvEzX64Lp9LAzyeBANa7kAoRx2pgObqnfwcg0QmXnPhsZ43x2mRw9yKXy P7bHPZab/VycaKwBs/tbjaepyxquOFvXpo73qh7mUZJKVWRU17ObDNY2QehxsjyVB+Vf haFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683602211; x=1686194211; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=7O5bVqTPmrWGonehudouzNCYJCGZ3XVJlk3/Q0pyzsg=; b=X3Ni0f76osT8XGpMcciLh6iiPi8RuMvKexRahdOsy1vZELvn+ho2AbMBvEcDNZxkRc fZtiBwqosgZ2X4MzVHZ3JKOzSwxeAB8M8RKm3Eu6Jej+Mltov1/oOUNaOyTqj6TGmL2h O+jzq4YtHobXkY3RT7MDIQXetMCPaLpbSkfXeJXxvMa0bkxIe9Yq/sJne6+zeqykMp/m hB+Vf9GyRgmqiJW5VmemqUCgWry5icWY23kPpCiMZ4Rd69C8q7RXDbkSNyU0CsZzdpQS +VYuNTFmbj5fKC8yfj+XsD0D4y9B6GHeXcBZtD/r+GG2XvmPENk+Ud3JZyFpITgsMVCM mCQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwglzxBuP5A5dalNjgkvPY/sKFKoseT+kb64nzPvqXy6JMFSMlE jLE1sOSXlCxqwImwCU4yMjmsYD2r1GNHgyFq X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7fvPKUZ1QDmhnP91IT5WZV/Ez9LjeghaM6rOw7Zz5lUQ+gAYLKk6DEClO5JsR7SLSTZGlqFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:817:b0:24b:fd8d:536b with SMTP id bk23-20020a17090b081700b0024bfd8d536bmr12876262pjb.29.1683602211564; Mon, 08 May 2023 20:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laptop-X1 ([43.228.180.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d18-20020a17090abf9200b002405d3bbe42sm10795413pjs.0.2023.05.08.20.16.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 May 2023 20:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 11:16:47 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu To: Jay Vosburgh Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Issue] Bonding can't show correct speed if lower interface is bond 802.3ad Message-ID: References: <15524.1682698000@famine> <84548.1683570736@vermin> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84548.1683570736@vermin> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:32:16AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > >Hi Jay, > > > >I just back from holiday and re-read you reply. The user doesn't add 2 LACP > >bonds inside an active-backup bond. He add 1 LACP bond and 1 normal NIC in to > >an active-backup bond. This seems reasonable. e.g. The LACP bond in a switch > >and the normal NIC in another switch. > > > >What do you think? > > That case should work fine without the active-backup. LACP has > a concept of an "individual" port, which (in this context) would be the > "normal NIC," presuming that that means its link peer isn't running > LACP. > > If all of the ports (N that are LACP to a single switch, plus 1 > that's the non-LACP "normal NIC") were attached to a single bond, it > would create one aggregator with the LACP enabled ports, and then a > separate aggregator for the indvidual port that's not. The aggregator > selection logic prefers the LACP enabled aggregator over the individual > port aggregator. The precise criteria is in the commentary within > ad_agg_selection_test(). > Thanks for your explanation. I didn't know this before. Now I have learned. Regards Hangbin