Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:06:06 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet? Message-ID: <kfe0ac$fjh$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <kfdvph$92n$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <kfduar$qrh$1@ger.gmane.org> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70995D@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org> <CAOjFWZ75GZwYwxuuXotqsfothz2cShbaD9yZQ9Gs5p%2BYbvA7Mw@mail.gmail.com> <kfdvph$92n$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/02/2013 18:57, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 12/02/2013 18:52, Freddie Cash wrote: >> Any reason you can't just use lagg(4) in one of the non-LACP modes? T= hat's >> bascially designed to do exactly what you want. >=20 > No particular reason, I'm just not familiar enough with it. Will e.g. > the "loadbalance" mode "just work" ? Should I expect any problems? Actually, I know next to nothing about link aggregation. How do ARP requests get solved? Would an attached L3-aware switch see the same IP address on two ports? Since "loadbalance" chooses ports based on a hash, it will probably start dropping 50% of the outgoing traffic if one of the two links dies? --------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEahI8ACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSzNsQCffLQPzMKBghXChipOtB8nTa2Q yXQAn06YKDEcfgVTYrhvnLxyOK9cyGhX =QUvX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig67810A0A7D8F2B4BE790E974--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?kfe0ac$fjh$1>