[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:14:35 -0600
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
CC: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 802.3ad bonding brain damaged?
On 08/08/2011 02:06 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> 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?
Bonding doesn't know about "higher level protocols". Also, assuming
that higher level protocols already deal with reordering can be
dangerous. I've dealt with network protocols and apps that assumed
there would be no reordering because at the time they were written they
used point-to-point links. They actually work fairly well with single
links, so it would be reasonable to try and keep them working with
bonded links.
Chris
--
Chris Friesen
Software Developer
GENBAND
chris.friesen@...band.com
www.genband.com
--
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