linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] bonding: add a vlan+srcmac tx hashing option

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:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 18:58:13 -0500
From:   Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Davis <tadavis@....gov>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] bonding: add a vlan+srcmac tx hashing option

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:30:33PM CET, jarod@...hat.com wrote:
> >This comes from an end-user request, where they're running multiple VMs on
> >hosts with bonded interfaces connected to some interest switch topologies,
> >where 802.3ad isn't an option. They're currently running a proprietary
> >solution that effectively achieves load-balancing of VMs and bandwidth
> >utilization improvements with a similar form of transmission algorithm.
> >
> >Basically, each VM has it's own vlan, so it always sends its traffic out
> >the same interface, unless that interface fails. Traffic gets split
> >between the interfaces, maintaining a consistent path, with failover still
> >available if an interface goes down.
> >
> >This has been rudimetarily tested to provide similar results, suitable for
> >them to use to move off their current proprietary solution.
> >
> >Still on the TODO list, if these even looks sane to begin with, is
> >fleshing out Documentation/networking/bonding.rst.
> 
> Jarod, did you consider using team driver instead ? :)

That's actually one of the things that was suggested, since team I believe
already has support for this, but the user really wants to use bonding.
We're finding that a lot of users really still prefer bonding over team.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com