Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:09:51 +0100 From: Fleuriot Damien <ml@my.gd> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet? Message-ID: <0FFECF51-FB74-4025-84EC-F83829723CDC@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <kfe0ac$fjh$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <kfduar$qrh$1@ger.gmane.org> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70995D@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org> <CAOjFWZ75GZwYwxuuXotqsfothz2cShbaD9yZQ9Gs5p%2BYbvA7Mw@mail.gmail.com> <kfdvph$92n$1@ger.gmane.org> <kfe0ac$fjh$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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? = That'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? >=20 > 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? >=20 >=20 You need a switch that can work with etherchannels (cisco , laggproto = fec on your box) or LACP. Otherwise I assume your switch is going to get very confused about the = MAC address for your IP moving around from port to port. Very *very* confused.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0FFECF51-FB74-4025-84EC-F83829723CDC>