Hi Ethan,
Regarding some old patch in which you added other_config:lacp-aggregation-key
to the Interface table.
I must be missing a reason of adding it to the Interface and not to the Port,
where it would affect all slaves at once:
when should users configure the key differently on slaves of t
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:51:19AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > I looked this over and didn't see any obvious problems, but I also
> > don't understand LACP very well. ?If you think I should, I will go
> > read up on it more so that I can better review the code.
>
> Your choice. This shouldn't
> I looked this over and didn't see any obvious problems, but I also
> don't understand LACP very well. If you think I should, I will go
> read up on it more so that I can better review the code.
Your choice. This shouldn't be a very controversial feature. Pretty
much all LACP implementations a
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:06:02PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Users will the ability to manually set aggregation keys on a
> per-slave basis in order to use some of the more advanced LACP
> features. Most notably, LACP controlled active-backup bonding
> requires fine grained aggregation key con
Users will the ability to manually set aggregation keys on a
per-slave basis in order to use some of the more advanced LACP
features. Most notably, LACP controlled active-backup bonding
requires fine grained aggregation key configuration.
---
lib/lacp.c | 14 --
lib/lacp.h
