From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 31 14:09:16 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC0D65D9; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-x233.google.com (mail-yh0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CAD21CA; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f10so7610014yha.38 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:09:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+QQAs7gSRyJwlJFLjG60R6UVfVLQyvv1f/tosytth1s=; b=sfYBd+MeA1VRgNTfK6ZeMpbaGYMjvwhnzwc0zVrynpTXipsMAAofVKpaXnsu1yGYXH wLjV0dFdABTszmOXaSBXz+ioSvEW3xD725q/pNgzBARx6/tqX9cFC7AyypmvKiRsZ7Y+ K/L7tovYlAc0YzEMQX0BUMsNdj22jXtTRXjJ9OA/YB7uqUhKaSuMG1ugshVdoEDE523G 9pgmQrnJx80mdV3C54HssfZI317EbSqbFJ2o8L6i5VkcqPOH9sAihc2ZvWuw3korDQ95 SYeYH670vtG5qVRhEfeDou7RKf8xuzQd9vSQPu1duxDv1nZHBlc19qEqWYwJbL7nP/MW W4Rg== X-Received: by 10.236.138.73 with SMTP id z49mr1837008yhi.152.1396274955483; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:09:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: rafaelpossa@gmail.com Received: by 10.170.147.4 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:08:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1396274318.36618.YahooMailNeo@web184905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <533636D4.4040404@weboutsourcing.cz> <1396274318.36618.YahooMailNeo@web184905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> From: Rafael Possamai Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:08:54 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3clB3992SGiRQL1daNA_OJh2sqY Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible mistake on handbook - Section 30.7: Link Aggregation To: Dru Lavigne Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "freebsd-doc@freebsd.org" , "feld@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:09:16 -0000 I am glad I could help. Thank you everyone who participated in this thread. Best, Rafael On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dru Lavigne wrote: > > > > > > >Dne 29.3.2014 3:32, Thomas Hoffmann napsal(a): > >>> I was reading the handbook and stumbled upon the following sentence: > >>> > >>> "Failover allows traffic to continue to flow even if an interface > becomes > >>> available." > >> > >> Also, does "an interface" convey what we need here? For any given N-way > >> aggregation, can't we have N-1 (one or more, but not all) interfaces > become > >> unavailable and still have a working link? > > > >And Cpt. Obvious may add an interface is not enough, you can have four > >interfaces aggregated in the bond, but there is still no flow without a > >link. To add even more chaos, both the physical and virtual interfaces > >are mentioned in the sentence preceding the one which Rafael mentions. > > > >That said, what about something like following? > > > >Failover allows traffic to continue to flow if at least one aggregated > >network interface has link established. > > > > I've commited an edit in r44394. Please let me know if further > wordsmithing is needed to make it clearer. > > Thanks Rafael for pointing this out! > > Cheers, > > Dru > >