netdev - Re: bonding-devel mail list?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5f1a3342-a4dd-0555-8cf9-922b1acc3d8e@wkks.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 07:56:22 -0500
From:   Bill Carlson <billcarlson@...s.org>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bonding-devel mail list?

On 5/23/19 5:31 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
> 	However, the logic in LACP will attach every slave of the bond
> to an aggregator.  If one or more slaves are connected to a specific
> LACP peer, they will aggregate together.  If any slave is connected to a
> non-LACP peer, it will aggregate as an "individual" port.
>
> 	When bonding's LACP mode selects the best aggregator to use,
> "non-individual" (i.e., connected to a LACP peer) ports are preferred,
> but if no such ports are available, an individual port is selected as
> the active aggregator.  The precise logic is found in the
> ad_agg_selection_test() function [1].
>
> 	If what you've got works for you, then that's great, but I
> suspect it would still work if all of the interfaces were in a single
> 802.3ad bond without the nesting.
>
> 	-J
Ah, hadn't considered LACP mode would accept non-LACP interfaces. I'll 
chase this.
Thanks.