Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:20:35 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: Andreas Brodmann <andreas.brodmann@gmaare.migros.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: etherchannel / bonding Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.1001012100904.59816A-100000@shell-2.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.19881012105254.02a77070@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Oct 1988, Dennis wrote: :At 09:01 AM 10/12/2000, David Scheidt wrote: :>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dennis wrote: :> :>:We will have the feature in our bandwidth manager product for FreeBSD :>:shortly, including fallover. Its really load balancing; bonding is a bad :>:term (no doubt coined by the linux camp). :>: :> :>It's telco usage from before there was a linux (and probably before :>there was a Linus), so it's rather unlikely that they're responsible for :>it. : : :No, telcos used the term "bonding" for ISDN, which actually IS a physical :bonding technique. Its all the half-wits that think that load balancing is :the same thing that now associate virtual techniques to something very :different. It's used for other cases where a high capacity circuit is built out of multiple physical channels. That's what the original claims about EtherChannel were from cisco, and it's what we use it for. That it continues to work if one the links has a failure is a bonus. It's a substantial bonus, but it would be used even if it didn't. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.1001012100904.59816A-100000>