>
>It seems that the NetBSD folks have eliminated this ongoing pain in the
>butt by using the mii interface for the intel cards. Is freebsd also moving
>in this direction? Every few months there seems to be a problem, and its
>difficult to fix it without docs
The primary problems that have
Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
> Mike> This is primarily conditional on Cisco or some other party
> Mike> making the specifications for etherchannel freely available.
> Mike> The last time I went looking for any actual documentation on
> Mike> how to format things on the wire, I drew a c
> "rbg" == rbg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rbg> How does this compare with Intel's Adaptive Load Balancing
rbg> (ALB) ? -- I guess it's closer to Intel's Link Aggregation
Dunno, I'm not familiar with ALB.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ha
> "Mike" == Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> This is primarily conditional on Cisco or some other party
Mike> making the specifications for etherchannel freely available.
Mike> The last time I went looking for any actual documentation on
Mike> how to format things
This is primarily conditional on Cisco or some other party making the
specifications for etherchannel freely available. The last time I went
looking for any actual documentation on how to format things on the wire,
I drew a complete blank.
Then we just need someone to lend a developer the req
I think someone got me wrong there:
What I would like to ask the freebsd core team is if
an implementation of the etherchannel capability - the
way cisco uses the term - is planned in further
development (for multiple physical ethernet
interfaces not for isdn links). E.g. for channeling
all four
>
>It's used for other cases where a high capacity circuit is built out
>of multiple physical channels. That's what the original claims about
>EtherChannel were from cisco, and it's what we use it for. That it
>continues to work if one the links has a failure is a bonus. It's a
>substantial bo
On Wed, 12 Oct 1988, Dennis wrote:
:At 09:01 AM 10/12/2000, David Scheidt wrote:
:>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dennis wrote:
:>
:>:We will have the feature in our bandwidth manager product for FreeBSD
:>:shortly, including fallover. Its really load balancing; bonding is a bad
:>:term (no doubt coined by
Dennis wrote:
>
> At 09:01 AM 10/12/2000, David Scheidt wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dennis wrote:
> >
> >:We will have the feature in our bandwidth manager product for FreeBSD
> >:shortly, including fallover. Its really load balancing; bonding is a bad
> >:term (no doubt coined by the linux ca
It seems that the NetBSD folks have eliminated this ongoing pain in the
butt by using the mii interface for the intel cards. Is freebsd also moving
in this direction? Every few months there seems to be a problem, and its
difficult to fix it without docs
DB
Emerging Technologies, Inc.
---
At 09:01 AM 10/12/2000, David Scheidt wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dennis wrote:
>
>:We will have the feature in our bandwidth manager product for FreeBSD
>:shortly, including fallover. Its really load balancing; bonding is a bad
>:term (no doubt coined by the linux camp).
>:
>
>It's telco usage f
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dennis wrote:
:We will have the feature in our bandwidth manager product for FreeBSD
:shortly, including fallover. Its really load balancing; bonding is a bad
:term (no doubt coined by the linux camp).
:
It's telco usage from before there was a linux (and probably before
t
12 matches
Mail list logo
