From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 12 18:06:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624D4FEB for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:06:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-net@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACF0806 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U5KFX-00070e-Gw for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:06:35 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:06:35 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:06:35 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet? Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:06:06 +0100 Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120812 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:06:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/02/2013 18:57, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 12/02/2013 18:52, Freddie Cash wrote: >> Any reason you can't just use lagg(4) in one of the non-LACP modes? T= hat's >> bascially designed to do exactly what you want. >=20 > No particular reason, I'm just not familiar enough with it. Will e.g. > the "loadbalance" mode "just work" ? Should I expect any problems? Actually, I know next to nothing about link aggregation. How do ARP requests get solved? Would an attached L3-aware switch see the same IP address on two ports? Since "loadbalance" chooses ports based on a hash, it will probably start dropping 50% of the outgoing traffic if one of the two links dies? --------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEahI8ACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSzNsQCffLQPzMKBghXChipOtB8nTa2Q yXQAn06YKDEcfgVTYrhvnLxyOK9cyGhX =QUvX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974--