netdev - Re: [Issue] Bonding can't show correct speed if lower interface is bond 802.3ad

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZFm7Hwz6cqEkVB1g@Laptop-X1>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 11:16:47 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Issue] Bonding can't show correct speed if lower interface is
 bond 802.3ad

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:32:16AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >Hi Jay,
> >
> >I just back from holiday and re-read you reply. The user doesn't add 2 LACP
> >bonds inside an active-backup bond. He add 1 LACP bond and 1 normal NIC in to
> >an active-backup bond. This seems reasonable. e.g. The LACP bond in a switch
> >and the normal NIC in another switch.
> >
> >What do you think?
> 
> 	That case should work fine without the active-backup.  LACP has
> a concept of an "individual" port, which (in this context) would be the
> "normal NIC," presuming that that means its link peer isn't running
> LACP.
> 
> 	If all of the ports (N that are LACP to a single switch, plus 1
> that's the non-LACP "normal NIC") were attached to a single bond, it
> would create one aggregator with the LACP enabled ports, and then a
> separate aggregator for the indvidual port that's not.  The aggregator
> selection logic prefers the LACP enabled aggregator over the individual
> port aggregator.  The precise criteria is in the commentary within
> ad_agg_selection_test().
> 

Thanks for your explanation. I didn't know this before. Now I have learned.

Regards
Hangbin