On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:51:36PM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote: K> > <kill...@multiplay.co.uk> wrote: K> > K> >> Yes known issue I'm afraid. K> >> K> >> I created a patch set to address this but there where objections so K> >> it was removed, see the attached which is based on 10.2-RELEASE. K> > K> > Hi, K> > K> > Thanks for the reply, and the comprehensive patch. If I get a chance K> > I'll see if I can run it up one of the affected boxes, if I can find K> > one I can mess around with. K> > K> > Good to know it wasn't just "me" :) K> > K> > Cheers, K> > K> > -Karl K> K> Also see the following review, which was re-opened (after original K> commit was reverted) after said issues were raised, though I can't see K> that glebius has commented on it since: K> K> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D4111 K> K> 11.0 having this would have been awesome. Maybe (hopefully) 11.1
IMHO, the original patch was absolutely evil hack touching multiple layers, for the sake of a very special problem. I think, that in order to kick forwarding table on switches, lagg should: - allocate an mbuf itself - set its source hardware address to its own - set destination hardware to broadcast - put some payload in there, to make packet of valid size. Why should it be gratuitous ARP? A machine can be running IPv6 only, or may even use whatever higher level protocol, e.g. PPPoE. We shouldn't involve IP into this Layer 2 problem at all. - Finally, send the prepared mbuf down the lagg member(s). And please don't hack half of the network stack to achieve that :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"