| 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@nortelnetworks.com> |
| References: | <3D860246.3060609@candelatech.com> <20020916.125555.36549381.davem@redhat.com> <3D8648AE.DD498ECE@nortelnetworks.com> |
| 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. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Chris Friesen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Chris Friesen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Chris Friesen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Chris Friesen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |