Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology

2020-06-16 Thread Chas Williams
On 6/16/20 11:45 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:52:01 -0400 > Chas Williams <3ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger < >> > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: >> > >> >> I am distu

Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology

2020-06-16 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:52:01 -0400 Chas Williams <3ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger < > > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > >> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet

Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology

2020-06-16 Thread Chas Williams
On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger < > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > >> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet bonding. >> Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed >> "upstream

Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology

2020-06-16 Thread Jay Rolette
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger < step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet bonding. > Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed > "upstream". > > The proper terminology is for Ethernet link ag

Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology

2020-06-16 Thread Chas Williams
On 6/15/20 6:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet bonding. > Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed "upstream". > > The proper terminology is for Ethernet link aggregation in the > the current standard