| To: | Dan Browning <danb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Development status on bthernet bonding? |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:47:58 +0200 |
| Cc: | tadavis@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <000001bffda7$21fc4590$1500000a@danb>; from Dan Browning on Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:09:17AM +0200 |
| References: | <000001bffda7$21fc4590$1500000a@danb> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:09:17AM +0200, Dan Browning wrote: > > I think FEC is a pretty great functionality for servers that need more than > 100mbps but can't afford 1gbps, and I'm supprised that there isn't more > clamoring for it's inclusion. TEQL and route based load balancing works for near all people, so there is not much demand for just another channel bundling system in addition to the three(five if you count ppp) Linux already has. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: TCP Management, Erik Verbruggen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: ipv6 implementation docs, Mark Thompson |
| Previous by Thread: | Development status on bthernet bonding?, Dan Browning |
| Next by Thread: | Don't allow mapped address after binding to ipv4., Hideaki YOSHIFUJI |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |