Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:33:43 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: using netgraph to connect 2 physical interfaces into one virtual interface Message-ID: <20040624143343.GA56406@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <1088030164.29367.57.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> References: <1088030164.29367.57.camel@lanshark.dmv.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jun 23), Sven Willenberger said: > I am having a lot of trouble trying to make the following work (after > some exhaustive googling etc) > > Goal: 2 interfaces (em0 and em1) to be "combined" or bonded into one > virtual interface so as to provide both increased throughput and > failover. Both physical ports connected to either the same or different > switches with a virtual gateway (the configuration for which is being > haandled separately). > > What I have tried (using netgraph) and the results: > > 1) (from the ng_one2many manpage): > 2) adapted from freebsd-security (derkweiler) http://www.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD-Security/2004-01/0084.html thread : > > So my question is, without trying to get into ng_fec (which I understand > will also need hardware support on the other end -- blades, etc), how ng_fec needs just as much hardware support as one2many: the system at the other end must be able to handle port aggregation, and must be able to be manually configured. Both nodes do the same thing, in slightly different ways. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040624143343.GA56406>