linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode

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:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:34:52 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     孙守鑫 <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn>
Cc:     j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        dsahern@...nel.org, oliver@...kum.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, huyd12@...natelecom.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb
 mode

Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:49:02AM CET, sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn wrote:
>
>在 2022/3/17 16:11, Jiri Pirko 写道:
>> Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:15:21AM CET, sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn wrote:
>> > This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode.
>> > 
>> > Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <huyd12@...natelecom.cn>
>> > Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@...natelecom.cn>
>> 
>> Could you please reply to my question I asked for v1:
>> Out of curiosity, what is exactly your usecase? I'm asking because
>> I don't see any good reason to use RLB/ALB modes. I have to be missing
>> something.
>> 
>> This is adding a lot of code in bonding that needs to be maintained.
>> However, if there is no particular need to add it, why would we?
>> 
>> Could you please spell out why exactly do you need this? I'm pretty sure
>> that in the end well find out, that you really don't need this at all.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>
>
>This patch is certainly aim fix one real issue in ou lab.
>For historical inheritance, the bond6 with ipv4 is widely used in our lab.
>We started to support ipv6 for all service last year, networking operation
>and maintenance team
>think it does work with ipv6 ALB capacity take it for granted due to bond6's
>specification
>but it doesn't work in the end. as you know, it is impossible to change link
>neworking to LACP
>because of huge cost and effective to online server.

I don't follow. Why exactly can't you use LACP? Every switch supports
it.