Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:06:39 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: etherchannel / bonding Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001012115935.01e01d80@mail.etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.1001012100904.59816A-100000@shell-2.enteract .com> References: <5.0.0.25.0.19881012105254.02a77070@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >It's used for other cases where a high capacity circuit is built out >of multiple physical channels. That's what the original claims about >EtherChannel were from cisco, and it's what we use it for. That it >continues to work if one the links has a failure is a bonus. It's a >substantial bonus, but it would be used even if it didn't. Well its wrong, so why perpetuate it? Higher minds are supposed to know better than to just follow the wallys. Anyone who ever worked at a telco knows how clueless they are about anything that doesnt have a red and a green light on it. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.0.25.0.20001012115935.01e01d80>