On Tuesday 12 August 2008 13:43:29 Marian Hettwer wrote: > Hi Pete, > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:30:12 +0100, Pete French > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> However, IMO lacp doesn't solve that problem. lacp is used for link > >> aggregation, not failover. > > > > It does both - if one of the links becomes unavailable then it will > > stop using it. We use this for failover and it works fine, the only > > caveat being that your LACP device at the far end needs to look like > > a single phsyical device (the nicer Cisco switches do this quite happily) > > thanks for that info. > > >> The manpage states "In the event of changes in physical > > > > connectivity...". > > > >> Again, does that mean, the link needs to be physically unavailable? If > > > > so, > > > >> it'll be the same behaviour as in failover mode and doesn't solve my > >> problem of a misconfigured switch... > > > > lagg is to handle failover at the physical layer for when one of your > > ether ports fails, or someone unplugs a cable. If I understand you > > correctly you are looking for something at the next layer up, to handle > > a problem where the ports work fine, but are not going to their expected > > destinations. lagg won't do this. > > Thats unfortunate... > bonding in Linux is capable of doing this and solaris too. > Well then. At least everythings clear now. And in the end, clarifing things > was the reason for that mail thread :)
You are looking for net/ifstated -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
