This looks good to me. Unrelated to this patch:
The more I think about it. I don't think falling back to balance-slb is the appropriate thing to do when lacp negotiations fail for balance-tcp bonds. I think it will be much safer to fall back to active-backup. Generally speaking, in a properly configured system, LACP negotiations won't fail. Therefore LACP negotiation failures represent exceptional circumstances in which safety seems like it would extremely valuable. I'm worried about the case where someone configures their network with a LACP bond going to 2 or more separate switches (completely valid according to the spec). If something goes wrong, they will fall back to balance-slb and thus be running an slb bond in a distributed manner across multiple switches. This should "theoretically" work, but feels risky to me. I'm confident active-backup will work in all cases however. Thoughts? Ethan On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 09:51, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:28:57PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> SLB bonds, for important reasons, drop most incoming packets that indicate >> that a MAC has moved to the bond from another port. These reasons do not >> apply to other types of bonds, but until now OVS has still dropped them. >> >> This fixes the problem. It changes behavior of active-backup bonds and >> stable bonds, neither of which has the same problem as SLB. Behavior of >> SLB bonds and TCP bonds in SLB fallback mode is unaffected. >> >> Bug #7928. > > This needs review. It shouldn't be very hard. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
