Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:02:08 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Tom Samplonius <tom@samplonius.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lagg(4) and failover Message-ID: <20081209090208.GZ58682@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <11397385.9861228809480949.JavaMail.root@ly.sdf.com> References: <1228746983.2805.567.camel@soundwave.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com> <11397385.9861228809480949.JavaMail.root@ly.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--FmwJltL8yKUx7YXQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please wrap your mail before 80 columns. On 2008-Dec-08 23:58:00 -0800, Tom Samplonius <tom@samplonius.org> wrote: > The Linux bonding driver supports probing the default gateway. This is the same brokenness as Solaris IPMP. I agree that probing an external IP address (probably, but not necessarily a gateway) is the way to go but you need to be able to configure this. Otherwise you need to jump through hoops where the interfaces you are protecting is not the default route (or there are multiple independent groups of interfaces being protected). > Now, it uses ARP for this (probably because the ARP who-has code is >also in the kernel and easily accessible), which also not so great, I don't see that it's necessary to have the interface failover code in the kernel. The kernel needs hooks to allow a daemon to bind to the physical interfaces and control which one is active, but the actual code that decides how to determine which interface is active should be in userland. (Note that routing works this way). >switches do not support multi-switch 802.3ad yet, and most probably >never well. So you are limited to a single switch. So 802.3ad is >good only for aggregation, and not for high availability. Keep in mind that higher-end switches as well as stacked lower-end switches have a reasonable amount of internal redundancy so 802.3ad within one distinct components of one physical switch may be adequate for many purposes. Keep in mind that you'll still need multiple FreeBSD boxes to prevent them being a single point of failure. --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --FmwJltL8yKUx7YXQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkk+NBAACgkQ/opHv/APuIcLcACePuDtU8gKvpbCJUibRp5Doa1k qlYAnRJIAeAwSRHVtexkseTrnwEYcE9b =o724 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FmwJltL8yKUx7YXQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081209090208.GZ58682>