From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 16 6: 0:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from tch.org (tacostand.tch.org [199.74.220.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB456152F3 for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 06:00:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ser@tch.org) Received: (from ser@localhost) by tch.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA51577; Sun, 16 May 1999 06:00:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ser) Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 06:00:26 -0700 From: Steve Rubin To: Bernd Walter Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig: changing mac address Message-ID: <19990516060025.A51560@tch.org> References: <199905150328.UAA27064@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> <19990515002636.A28747@tch.org> <19990516120149.B48820@cicely8.cicely.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: <19990516120149.B48820@cicely8.cicely.de>; from Bernd Walter on Sun, May 16, 1999 at 12:01:49PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Yes Etherchannel uses some other mechanism to balance the load. Its acually worse :) Cisco Etherchannel requires the device attached to speak a special protocol to keep things working. You can not just take any system, put 2 NIC's in it plug it into a cisco switch, and expect it to work. It wont (well, atleast it wont have the desired result). If you turn on fast etherchannel on the port, the switch will expect to be able to talk to the device with the "etherchannel" protocol. If it cant, it will not activate the ports. But I do beleive it is worthwhile for us to support this, I beleive the spec is open? I will check with cisco. -- Steve Rubin - ser@tch.org - http://www.tch.org/~ser/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message