On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 07:21:30PM -0800, David Stevens wrote:
> > > Marking the master down would, I believe, issue notifiers that
> > > the device has gone down. Various things, network manager sort of
> > > applications in particular, listen to those, so I'm not sure it's a
> good
> > > idea. I think there are other side effects as well, I'm thinking it
> > > would flush routes associated with the interface as well.
>
> [BTW, you can call ip_mc_down()/ip_mc_up() directly w/o getting there
> from the notifiers -- then no side-effects.]
>
While this might seem like a nice solution if we think only about what
would cause the smallest change to igmp.c (since you just need to add a
small patch to export additional symbols), I shudder to think about the
disruption that this could cause in the network in some cases.
> Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Jay here. I hate that bonding has to have so much
> > knowledge about upper layer protocols, but for the ones that are
> > stateful like IGMP we will need fixes like the one proposed.
>
> I have no problem with bonding having knowledge of ULP's (I
> don't like it, but I don't have to look at it :-) ), but the
> patch is doing it the other way around. What I don't like about the
> proposed patch is that it's adding knowledge of bonding to IGMP.
I disagree with this statement. Why does adding an extra function to
aide in the transmission of additional igmp joins cause igmp to have
knowledge of bonding?
> And IGMP does work fine in this case, w/o flooding or the
> proposed patch. It just has the risk of losing multicast packets
> during one query interval, and that only happens if you're
> using a switch that does IGMP snooping.
I feel like igmp snooping is a pretty widely used feature and I would
guess that it is used by anyone doing a/b bonding that has concerns
about igmp failover.
> I'd like the patch a lot better if it were basicly this:
>
> mc_bond_fudge(void)
> {
> ip_mc_down(masterdev);
> /*do whatever you need to do to switch the slave */
> ip_mc_up(masterdev);
> }
>
> That doesn't go through the notifier chain, uses existing
> functions, doesn't have any refcnt issues, and most importantly
> could/should reside in a bonding source file and not in igmp.c. :-)
> But RTNL is required whether you use up/down or roll your
> own variant, so it sounds like you have other issues to resolve too.
The RTNL stuff would be all done work if Jay would just accept my
workqueue patch. ;-)
>
> +-DLS
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
