netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: add mark 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, 1 May 2009 16:09:40 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: add mark mode

> 
> 	If I'm not misunderstanding the purpose of the mode, I think
> it's etherchannel compatible (meaning that the switch has to be
> configured), so I'm not sure why there would ever be a need to flood
> packets to all ports.
> 
It entirely possible that there may be no need to flood frames, I was just
asking the question.  And while it is possible that this might be etherchannel
compatible (in fact I agree, it does look compatible), I can see uses for it
beyond that (active-backup with traffic-class load balancing for example).

> 	I think this would be generally be better a special hash policy,
> in which case both the etherchannel (balance-xor) and 802.3ad modes
> could take advantage of it.  I'd hazard to guess that Andy thought about
> that, too, so what was the impediment?
> 

I honestly don't know, although I will say that making a special hash mode for
balance-xor seems a bit odd, since the implication there would be that output
port was no longer chosen by an xor operation.
Neil

--
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