On 18/12/2015 9:55 AM, Steven Hartland wrote: > On 17/12/2015 19:20, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> Steven, >> >> another feasible solution for the design described in the 156226 >> would be to run STP on the switches, and if_bridge(4) instead of >> if_lagg(4) on FreeBSD, also with STP enabled. Would work perfectly. >> >> Of course, if switches are dumb and cheap, and can't do STP, >> then a tiny bpf-writer is the right solution. >> >> P.S. When I was running network in my university dormitory, we >> used a lot of cheap solutions, and a lot of dirty workarounds, >> but none of the latter made its way to FreeBSD kernel. You can >> also ask Eugene Grosbein, he also has huge experience of living >> on not so pleasant workarounds, but not pushing them agrressively >> into the kernel. >> > Last time I heard STP is a bad word in networking, so I'm sure they > network team > would have me crucified for even suggesting it and start shouting MLAG > for the > rest of the day ;-) > > Regards > Steve
FWIW, during my testing at $lastjob, STP-enabled switches didn't provide optimial failback times, even with portfast enabled. This was for two FreeBSD machines providing HA network management services for multiple backends configured with dual-port bge/em NIC's configured with lagg(4) (bge0/em0, bge1,em1) in failover mode (no aggregation), with multiple carp(4) interfaces for public service IP's on top. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
