From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 9 14:16: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A524937B401; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:15:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (cdillon@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA85794; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:15:38 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:15:38 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon To: Dan Nelson Cc: Bill Paul , , Subject: Re: call for testers: port aggregation netgraph module In-Reply-To: <20010209150303.A22605@dan.emsphone.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Feb 08), Chris Dillon said: > > > The channel bonding is done using the Cisco fast etherchannel > > > mechanism. The default hashing mechanism uses the MAC address, > > > however you can select IP address hashing as well. IPv4 and IPv6 > > > address *should* work, though I must admit I've been using IPv4 > > > until now. If someone actually has a Cisco switch that implements > > > fast ethetchannel, I'd be interested to know if it works with this > > > module. At the moment, my test environment consist of two machines > > > with multiport ethernet cards wired up using four crossover cables. > > > > Apparently there is another way to do channel bonding with switches > > that don't support Cisco's EtherChannel, since I'm doing it with > > 3COM's (piece of *hit) SuperStackII switches and I don't have > > EtherChannel support enabled in Compaq's NT drivers for their Intel > > NICs. > > I've just finished scouring Cisco's documentation, and it doesn't > look like FEC is anything beyond plain old trunking (with the > option of autoconfiguration on some hardware). As long as you > configure the appropriate ports on the switch on the other end as > "SA-Trunk", or "Trunk", you should be okay. Cool, if thats all it will take, I'll give it a try. But, whatever method Compaq/Intel is using doesn't require me to set up the ports on the switch as being part of a trunk. It "just works". And IIRC, when I actually tried to set the ports on the 3COM switch up as trunk ports, it didn't work right. Maybe 3COM is doing something entirely different. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet. For IA32 and Alpha architectures. IA64, PPC, and ARM under development. http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message