| To: | "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 2.6.11] bonding: avoid tx balance for IGMP (alb/tlb mode) |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:52:14 -0800 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ctindel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fubar@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050315215128.GA18262@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050315215128.GA18262@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 |
Is that switch behaviour "normal" or "correct?" I know next to nothing about
what stuff like LACP should do, but asked some internal folks and they had this
to say:
<excerpt> <blank> treats IGMP packets the same as all other non-broadcast traffic (i.e. it will attempt to load balance). This switch behavior seems rather odd in an aggregated case, given the fact that most traffic (except broadcast packets) will be load balanced by the partner device. In addition, the switch (in theory) is suppose to treat the aggregated switch ports as 1 logical port and therefore it should allow IGMP packets to be received back on any port in the logical aggregation. IMO, the switch behavior in this case seems questionable. </excerpt> FWIW, rick jones |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Optimize loopback stats, Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch 01/13] b44: allocate tx bounce bufs as needed, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | [patch 2.6.11] bonding: avoid tx balance for IGMP (alb/tlb mode), John W. Linville |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 2.6.11] bonding: avoid tx balance for IGMP (alb/tlb mode), Jay Vosburgh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |