| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090501200940.GB5840@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists