netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation

To: cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cacophonix@xxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3D8648AE.DD498ECE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3D860246.3060609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020916.125555.36549381.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3D8648AE.DD498ECE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
   From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:10:06 -0400
   
   Okay, that makes me even more curious why we don't send successive
   packets out successive pipes in a bonded link.

This is not done because it leads to packet reordering which
if bad enough can trigger retransmits.

Scott Feldman's posting mentioned this, as did one other I
think.

Same flows (which in this context means TCP connection) must
go over the same link to avoid packet reordering at the receiver.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>