netdev - Re: 802.3ad bonding brain damaged?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:08:53 -0500
From:	Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 802.3ad bonding brain damaged?

Once upon a time, Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com> said:
> On 8/8/2011 3:57 AM, David Lamparter wrote:
> >No, it isn't. 802.3ad/.1AX explicitly requires that no packet
> >re-ordering may ever occur, which can only be guaranteed by enqueueing
> >packets for one host on one TX interface. This behaviour is mandated by
> >802.1AX-2008 page 15 which reads:
> 
> Outch, that does cause a big problem for store-and-forward switching. 
> You basically can't split up packets from a single stream without very 
> careful cut-through switching, which we obviously can't do in Linux. 
> That seems a rather silly requirement given that higher level protocols 
> already deal with packet reordering.  Why not an option to say stuff the 
> standard?

Packet reordering introduces jitter, which is bad for things like VOIP.
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html