On 23/01/2015 01:49 μμ, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
>> On 14/01/2015 12:47 μμ, Jeronimo de A. Barros wrote:
>> but my logic was wrongly applied to the conf, it should haven been:
>> protocol bfd {
>> debug { states, routes, filters, i
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 12:47 μμ, Jeronimo de A. Barros wrote:
> but my logic was wrongly applied to the conf, it should haven been:
> protocol bfd {
> debug { states, routes, filters, interfaces, events };
> interface "bond0" {
>
On 14/01/2015 12:47 μμ, Jeronimo de A. Barros wrote:
> Hi...
>
> I think that the correct would be the minus signal inside de quotes:
>
> interface "-eth*"
>
from the doc of the interface common option:
[..snip..]
An interface matches the pattern if it matches any of its clauses. If the
clause
Hi...
I think that the correct would be the minus signal inside de quotes:
interface "-eth*"
Jero
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Pavlos Parissis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my Linux systems I have 4 interfaces and I use bonding for 2 of them and
> the rest are down(no cable/or switch port is disabl
Hi,
In my Linux systems I have 4 interfaces and I use bonding for 2 of them and
the rest are down(no cable/or switch port is disabled)
I set specific BFD settings for bond interface
protocol bfd {
debug { states, routes, filters, interfaces, events };
interface "bond0" {
min rx in
