From owner-freebsd-net Thu Oct 31 7:28:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A8037B401 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:28:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496FD43E3B for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:28:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from don@sandvine.com) Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <42S9VQS3>; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:28:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: Don Bowman To: 'Petri Helenius' , Don Bowman Cc: "'freebsd-net@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: ng_fec hash mechanism versus cisco etherchannel Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:28:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: Petri Helenius [mailto:pete@he.iki.fi] > It does not matter if you send using the other link as long > as you send > all packets > for the same stream over the same link to avoid reordering. > So yes, it does > interoperate. can you end up with a link flap? e.g. the catalyst does SA learning to pick the port, so it sends it out port 1. We respond via port 2 since we use the SIP^DIP. The catalyst switches that through to the other end, which replies, and comes back via port 1. I guess this isn't tragic. --don (don@sandvine.com www.sandvine.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message