| To: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 2.6.11] bonding: avoid tx balance for IGMP (alb/tlb mode) |
| From: | "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:37:45 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ctindel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fubar@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4237833E.9080809@xxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ctindel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fubar@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20050315215128.GA18262@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4237833E.9080809@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:52:14PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote: > Is that switch behaviour "normal" or "correct?" I know next to nothing As Jay Vosburgh points-out, this patch only effects ALB and TLB modes. These are modes where the link partner is unaware of the bonded configuration. In effect, we are tricking the switch into behaving the way we desire. Since the switch is unaware of our bonded behaviour, I think it makes sense to accomodate this quirk related to IGMP snooping. John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [15/*] [INET] Fix IPsec calculation in ip_append_data/ip6_append_data, Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch 04/13] e100: NAPI fixes, John W. Linville |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 2.6.11] bonding: avoid tx balance for IGMP (alb/tlb mode), David Stevens |
| Next by Thread: | net patches, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |