Thanks. I pushed this commit as-is, then.
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 04:25:13PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Ah, that's a very good point. I suppose the correct thing to do would > be fall back to active-backup as you suggest. If we are going to do > that for LACP we may as well do it for the standard SLB case as well. > I think for now we should just warn as implemented in the current > version of the patch. I wan't to look up what linux bonding and > hardware implementations do in the case of failed LACP negotiations. > I'd prefer to mimic them. > > Sanjay, do you know what hardware switches usually do when they fail > to receive LACP PDUs on any of the slaves in a bond? Do they just > disable the link altogether, or just assume the bond is working > correctly, or fall back to an active-backup configuration? > > Ethan > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 08:55, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about the case where LACP fails to negotiate? ?Should we fall back > > to active-backup if flood_vlans are configured? > > > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:55:29PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> Personally I think it's better to just fail. ?This will force someone > >> configuring a bond to notice the problem and deal with it. ?I'm > >> worried about people deploying active-backup bond's in production when > >> they really intend slb bonds. > >> > >> That said, it's mostly an aesthetic issue and I don't feel > >> particularly strongly about it. > >> > >> Ethan > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 21:17, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:22:07PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> >> This seems fine, I would go slightly further though. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > + ? ?if (s->balance == BM_SLB && port->bridge->cfg->n_flood_vlans) { > >> >> > + ? ? ? ?VLOG_WARN("port %s: SLB bonds are incompatible with > >> >> > flood_vlans, " > >> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"please use another bond type or disable > >> >> > flood_vlans", > >> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?port->name); > >> >> > + ? ?} > >> >> > >> >> I would change this warning to an error, and actually fail to create > >> >> the port in this case. ?I'm afraid people are going to ignore the > >> >> warning in the log. ?If you disagree, go ahead and merge. > >> > > >> > What do you think of forcing the bond to active-backup mode? ?Then it > >> > will still work, at least. > >> > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
