[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180720082222.2f8cb8d2@xeon-e3>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:22:22 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
wkok@...ulusnetworks.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: bridge: add support for backup port
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:48:24 +0300
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> This set introduces a new bridge port option that allows any port to have
> any other port (in the same bridge of course) as its backup and traffic
> will be forwarded to the backup port when the primary goes down. This is
> mainly used in MLAG and EVPN setups where we have peerlink path which is
> a backup of many (or even all) ports and is a participating bridge port
> itself. There's more detailed information in patch 02. Patch 01 just
> prepares the port sysfs code for options that take raw value. The main
> issues that this set solves are scalability and fallback latency.
>
> We have used similar code for over 6 months now to bring the fallback
> latency of the backup peerlink down and avoid fdb notification storms.
> Also due to the nature of master devices such setup is currently not
> possible, and last but not least having tens of thousands of fdbs require
> thousands of calls to switch.
>
> I've also CCed our MLAG experts that have been using similar option.
>
> Thanks,
> Nik
>
>
> Nikolay Aleksandrov (2):
> net: bridge: add support for raw sysfs port options
> net: bridge: add support for backup port
>
> include/uapi/linux/if_link.h | 1 +
> net/bridge/br_forward.c | 16 ++++++++-
> net/bridge/br_if.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> net/bridge/br_netlink.c | 30 +++++++++++++++-
> net/bridge/br_private.h | 3 ++
> net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 6 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
Not sure why this has to be built into the bridge.
There already is bonding and teaming, why invent yet another?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists