From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 13 22:25:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FA016A41F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:25:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mailing-lists@msdi.ca) Received: from mail02.msdihosting.net (9.67-18-64.networks.msdihosting.net [64.18.67.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1689143D48 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:25:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mailing-lists@msdi.ca) Received: from ian.msdi.ca ([24.201.183.241]) by mail02.msdihosting.net ((iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003))) with SMTP id CLI20599 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:25:38 -0500 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20060113172122.0499a7c8@Msdi.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:24:56 -0500 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Ian Lord In-Reply-To: <20060113221411.GA10326@dan.emsphone.com> References: <43C80BF0.9050609@jim-liesl.org> <41B6048D-0F43-452A-8135-F2BF71B2DEF2@submonkey.net> <7.0.0.16.2.20060113165547.054915c8@Msdi.ca> <20060113221411.GA10326@dan.emsphone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-DEBUG: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: NIC bonding/teaming X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:25:04 -0000 At 17:14 2006-01-13, Dan Nelson wrote: >In the last episode (Jan 13), Ian Lord said: > > At 16:47 2006-01-13, Ceri Davies wrote: > > >On 13 Jan 2006, at 20:22, jim feldman wrote: > > >>Does 6.x have a nic bonding/teaming/failover feature like the linux > > >>bond (rnd robin, failover, ld bal, trunking)? I'm thinking > > >>multiple nics, one server, same lan/vlan. I've read up on CARP and > > >>one2many, but they don't seem to do what bond does. > > > > > >I think you want ng_one2many(4). > > > > I did a lot of tests with carp (was not appropriate at all), and > > ng_one2many > > > > I was able to make two nics appears at one with ng_one2many, but > > after severals days of tests and research, dropped it because it > > caused bad side effects and when I was pulling one nic out, it was > > stopping to transmit/receive for some moment. Also on the switch, > > both nics were registering the same mac address so my cisco was > > sending me warning about it every minute. > >That's because you forgot to configure your cisco and tell it those two >ports were trunked together :) > >Another alternative to ng_one2many is ng_fec, which despite its name >does not actually negotiate the FEC protocol with the remote end (you >have to hardcode it on the switch), but does do mac/ip port hashing. >That prevents packet reordering within flows. Patches to add LACP >negotiation (FEC is obsolete) are welcome though :) Oups :) Forgot to mention I was looking for switch redundancy also... So each nics were plugged into 2 separate switches so I was not able to configure the switch as trunk or etherchannel... On windows, I am able to team the nics on two different switches without problem with the hp or Intel teaming software, I guess only one nic works at the same time and register it's mac address in the switch tcam... For the original question, it should work with ng_one2Many :)