From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 12 18:09:55 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 71F5B200 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:09:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F17829 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:09:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hm14so469614wib.4 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:09:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=sg/+ESKgxx8AuB/ovcXJ2r85tNUTTcBIRWJuxfGalOM=; b=JAC1JIFgmZ26Sf4wBwNo5kvton87ComN70VlIb6RIARFdowVnJi0347mIa52iJqaED 9H3VDfdL8zIRXZetKXTIeiKy6Gz9Z9AMt9W2JllXavUEoRPaquV9Gax/ev7jjN7X5zuv RL0jEXQF9ilJh8iNKvLG4YYZetPivcA+THbrTGwbEQtdbqjbTy1vziQPRqCkcdrsCH1J YWiDDJRYWoAFJOjcIQ6pDGiL92NcJpXixlZxsxoJHGQR4ZG/Tf2EtKPpJO8qzjuFj1or svMZZVKYUYpimVovWS5DG8H5iTHd794kvNZV3dog64zKWBHSbLVWEqe6oKLhFAY+sbH1 e4aw== X-Received: by 10.194.86.38 with SMTP id m6mr17233122wjz.13.1360692593856; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfleuriot-at-hi-media.com ([83.167.62.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t7sm31303161wiy.2.2013.02.12.10.09.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:09:52 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet? From: Fleuriot Damien In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:09:51 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0FFECF51-FB74-4025-84EC-F83829723CDC@my.gd> References: To: Ivan Voras X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/2LnX+zwwfGogw4dUeJOS3ovKkTz4XXa8Eyw3KagVffExQpc1Nptwxs1NcKoTS+tJ5Qq6 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 18:09:55 -0000 On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Ivan Voras 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.