On 22/09/2016 02:12, Ryan Stone wrote:



On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org <mailto:gleb...@freebsd.org>> wrote:

    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 :)


The original report in this thread is about a system where it takes almost 15 minutes for the network to start working again after a failover. That does not sound to me like a switch problem. That sounds to me like the ARP cache on the remote system. To fix such a case we have to touch L3.
15mins is a long time however we don't do ARP correctly in this case, which is almost certainly the cause.
_______________________________________________
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"

Reply via email to