On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> IMHO, the original patch was absolutely evil hack touching multiple > layers, for the sake of a very special problem. > > I think, that in order to kick forwarding table on switches, lagg > should: > > - allocate an mbuf itself > - set its source hardware address to its own > - set destination hardware to broadcast > - put some payload in there, to make packet of valid size. Why should it be > gratuitous ARP? A machine can be running IPv6 only, or may even use > whatever > higher level protocol, e.g. PPPoE. We shouldn't involve IP into this > Layer 2 > problem at all. > - Finally, send the prepared mbuf down the lagg member(s). > > And please don't hack half of the network stack to achieve that :) > The original report in this thread is about a system where it takes almost 15 minutes for the network to start working again after a failover. That does not sound to me like a switch problem. That sounds to me like the ARP cache on the remote system. To fix such a case we have to touch L3. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
