Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:58:28 +0100 From: Ondra Knezour <knezour@weboutsourcing.cz> To: Thomas Hoffmann <trh411@gmail.com>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Cc: Rafael Possamai <rafael@gav.ufsc.br> Subject: Re: Possible mistake on handbook - Section 30.7: Link Aggregation Message-ID: <533636D4.4040404@weboutsourcing.cz> In-Reply-To: <CAB7-odmc7VVBTRDANJtd2c2KsvVr_SizoEOLzHTDgw%2B1t_CFeg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJB2g-FKyFbO4wvkOUL=2nQk=v1Y3816sJnUcj-2O2YMk5hThg@mail.gmail.com> <CAB7-odmc7VVBTRDANJtd2c2KsvVr_SizoEOLzHTDgw%2B1t_CFeg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dne 29.3.2014 3:32, Thomas Hoffmann napsal(a): >> I was reading the handbook and stumbled upon the following sentence: >> >> "Failover allows traffic to continue to flow even if an interface becomes >> available." > > Also, does "an interface" convey what we need here? For any given N-way > aggregation, can't we have N-1 (one or more, but not all) interfaces become > unavailable and still have a working link? And Cpt. Obvious may add an interface is not enough, you can have four interfaces aggregated in the bond, but there is still no flow without a link. To add even more chaos, both the physical and virtual interfaces are mentioned in the sentence preceding the one which Rafael mentions. That said, what about something like following? Failover allows traffic to continue to flow if at least one aggregated network interface has link established. -- Ondra Knezour
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?533636D4.4040404>