Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:56:20 -0500 From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> To: Zviratko <q@seznam.cz> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ethernet bonding/load balancing on fbsd 4-stable Message-ID: <20020217205620.GN413@overlord.e-gerbil.net> In-Reply-To: <003501c1b7a8$4431d5f0$0500a8c0@notes> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202170018540.39539-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <003501c1b7a8$4431d5f0$0500a8c0@notes>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ng_fec needs a cisco at the other end (or possibly another freebsd > > machine with ng_fec but I don't know that). Fast EtherChannel doesn't actually require a Cisco device on the other side, it is really just a "non-standardized standard" for the hashing that decides which physical interface the frame will go over. The other side may have a different decision making method resulting in different paths for bidirectional traffic, but that won't prevent it from working. The only real "cisco only" protocol is the PAgP (Port Aggregation Protocol) which is essentially just a FEC auto-negiotation protocol they made up. AFAIK noone other then Cisco actually implements this though. Of course now it is standardized under 802.3ad, which makes this whole discussion pointless. The netgraph module should probably be updated to reflect the new standard, but the existing stuff should still work. > yes, bond.c does as well, but it worked in my situation because of the > structure of the network I am on (basically, the nearest other host that > understands IP is Cisco 6K (i think). It worked exactly in the way it > should with ng_fec - 2 interfaces with the same MAC and IP and round > robin routing policy. But when I look at netstat -in, I see no packets > being sent out via fec0 (and thus they are dropped somewhere :-( ) It don't have to understand IP, and infact it don't have to understand any "link aggregation" method at all, in order to *receive* aggregated frames. If your server is transmitting 150Mbps but only receiving 20Mbps, you could linkagg 2 FastE links to a dumb NetGear switch and probably get away with it. All the inbound stuff would be transmitted over one link because the dumb switch didn't know how to do linkagg, but in that case it wouldn't really matter. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020217205620.GN413>