Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:06:43 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch Message-ID: <bug-156226-2472-Aol6rSYgj8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-156226-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-156226-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #17 from weberge42@gmail.com --- > Yes, and one should not depend on default values but configure switches as required. Bad luck if the MINIMUM value is 60s. > If one connects redundant layer-2 links to different switches, one should use some kind of signalling protocol like RSTP. Would not be needed if lagg announces the change. Simpler than fiddling around with protocols. Its also not granted that the infrastructure one is using supports/allows other protocols. > Too bad for you if you have manageable equipment but can't manage it. One does not always have access / permissions to do so. Company rules or whatever and people in charge of the network not always cooperative. But this is another point and not part of THIS problem. As for the rest. I'm glad it works for you. We have no need for PPPoE. Just for IPv4. Announcing the changes is the simplest solution. If failover using lagg with different switches is not supported or is considered exotic, the feature should be removed. The docs do not mention that this is the case. > I think though that this could well be made into a really simple user-space daemon Would be possible i think but i would vote against it. IMHO this is clearly a driver task to accomplish. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-156226-2472-Aol6rSYgj8>