[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGnkfhwmPxFhhEawxgTp9qt_Uw=HiN3kDVk9f33mr7wEJyp1NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:45:16 +0100
From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 7:41 PM Nikolay Aleksandrov
<nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2019 20:35, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > Hi Matteo,
> > Wouldn't it be more useful and simpler to use some field to choose the slave (override the hash
> > completely) in a deterministic way from user-space ?
> > For example the mark can be interpreted as a slave id in the bonding (should be
> > optional, to avoid breaking existing setups). ping already supports -m and
> > anything else can set it, this way it can be used to do monitoring for a specific
> > slave with any protocol and would be a much simpler change.
> > User-space can then implement any logic for the monitoring case and as a minor bonus
> > can monitor the slaves in parallel. And the opposite as well - if people don't want
> > these balanced for some reason, they wouldn't enable it.
> >
>
> Ooh I just noticed you'd like to balance replies as well. Nevermind
>
Also, the bonding could be in a router in the middle so no way to read the mark.
--
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream
Powered by blists - more mailing lists