Yes, that makes sense to me. I thought that we had essentially agreed on that change earlier in fact.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:00:26PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > 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
