Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:20:51 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r292379 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6 Message-ID: <20151217192051.GM42340@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5672C6AE.7070407@freebsd.org> References: <201512162226.tBGMQSvs098886@repo.freebsd.org> <20151217003824.GG42340@FreeBSD.org> <5672C6AE.7070407@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steven, another feasible solution for the design described in the 156226 would be to run STP on the switches, and if_bridge(4) instead of if_lagg(4) on FreeBSD, also with STP enabled. Would work perfectly. Of course, if switches are dumb and cheap, and can't do STP, then a tiny bpf-writer is the right solution. P.S. When I was running network in my university dormitory, we used a lot of cheap solutions, and a lot of dirty workarounds, but none of the latter made its way to FreeBSD kernel. You can also ask Eugene Grosbein, he also has huge experience of living on not so pleasant workarounds, but not pushing them agrressively into the kernel. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151217192051.GM42340>