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 8C38280C for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 07:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0942CD for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 00:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-643990c5319so4870859b3a.2 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 00:50:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683705040; x=1686297040; 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=g8QHypOkR2rR0fg1SwZYSlW6v3H9FDxdE7DBNoENqLM=; b=VPxC1OTsU5pzrXOTTWgW+t6qLxghZsK3Z2dBtwWTVkMnghbNr4FEatym2Nm6o2PuHp xdB91hzk7DvX1XckX4gI9koc9baLWm17B5mUPRAoLLgKmkWjJDSaLBBZXRO0+yzrqeer R5MRIwxZiGyYhVdh0GjlXvp1967P0PqZWZ1TDGzY4MxGIs3PoN4CLvgWehabws/p/NYf hcf32k2cPmY1KsuagreuqyVqzDNnfuttK1Ud+Zqx1eGeVOzOXRRDzhgRETKjlXy1WK+v ViZepiL+3RAQp51az/6uHPirFARQY7039JqYV+A3i7voR/qIOHqjXOWYf05TGzYV6eay 1sNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683705040; x=1686297040; 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=g8QHypOkR2rR0fg1SwZYSlW6v3H9FDxdE7DBNoENqLM=; b=i6gvIcye4F86Z3y9ivt4VNtfsb0iEUNpw6AML8ukHHh1eZ5BB6BVWPejE0pls8x7of JykkddKQpmNY3j8f+yb9K4T+SM0G2z3ghGciDhvYYXZdaUwokmz+wKg8vsE0Sg724Rll CoaAi2y7OYiqf6zqtOqEiACwl/kqEGP2LZ1x/iFfwEr+V8lUEnXHSdhSDRV/i4Tr3Pj6 IUePzPk5eVeg/CUu+3QRtNUzBlyHZ3PwrzjIeEAiglvn1onZn+aHlB8RkoikLO4u3q5I 7pt7i6XZwMbVtV+cg5kYW0GQdL7DJrX/GdHm0hoe68rWLt7YsViibkJlnfa6abwCAPmn 09Jw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxNgCAWx1kWwyLeIwfBcb5dF1m2iw7lHQ2phSsrSlnjH5AjcSaK nLeIAg8LadW2NptmK251/n4RuN5/S4KYHbKR X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7uzVP+/Y7Ljx58JJzGnbZwugHNMIAMsAuSqHqVMQouXx86iCu0ni2hXrnIoWh5s3LuSnXXtA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:4658:b0:f2:ba78:3d50 with SMTP id eb24-20020a056a20465800b000f2ba783d50mr16043121pzb.12.1683705040230; Wed, 10 May 2023 00:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laptop-X1 ([209.132.188.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n22-20020aa79056000000b0063d24fcc2b7sm3006622pfo.1.2023.05.10.00.50.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 May 2023 00:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 15:50:34 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu To: Jay Vosburgh Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Schorr 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(). > cc Andrew, He add active-backup bond over LACP bond because he want to use arp_ip_target to ensure that the target network is reachable... Hangbin