On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:12:11PM -0400, Ryan Stone wrote: R> > IMHO, the original patch was absolutely evil hack touching multiple R> > layers, for the sake of a very special problem. R> > R> > I think, that in order to kick forwarding table on switches, lagg R> > should: R> > R> > - allocate an mbuf itself R> > - set its source hardware address to its own R> > - set destination hardware to broadcast R> > - put some payload in there, to make packet of valid size. Why should it be R> > gratuitous ARP? A machine can be running IPv6 only, or may even use R> > whatever R> > higher level protocol, e.g. PPPoE. We shouldn't involve IP into this R> > Layer 2 R> > problem at all. R> > - Finally, send the prepared mbuf down the lagg member(s). R> > R> > And please don't hack half of the network stack to achieve that :) R> R> The original report in this thread is about a system where it takes almost R> 15 minutes for the network to start working again after a failover. That R> does not sound to me like a switch problem. That sounds to me like the ARP R> cache on the remote system. To fix such a case we have to touch L3.
Does lagg(4) hardware address change when it failovers? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ 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"
