exactly, derek. which is why i am gobsmacked that this scenario isn't supported.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 6:40 AM, Derek Balling wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:20 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)" > <lop...@nedharvey.com> wrote: >> Why would you want to do that? Why wouldn't you bond all 4 connections >> together? >> ec0 = bond rr eth0 eth1 eth2 eth3 >> >> Any one, or two, or three go down, the remaining one(s) still function as >> desired... > > Well, you might want predictable behavior. Let's say: > > eth0/1 go to your "A" side switches > eth2/3 go to your "B" side switches > > And "A" is generally where all your activity sits, unless you're doing > maintenance or have an outage on the "A" side, at which point traffic shifts > to the "B" side. > > And it could be that the "B" side hardware is less robust, lower-performance, > but "workable" in the event of an A-side outage. Or it goes to a different > upstream router/ISP at a higher cost. > > Lots of possibilities. > > D > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech@lists.lopsa.org > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ ----------------------- Andrew Hume 623-551-2845 (VO and best) 973-236-2014 (NJ) and...@research.att.com
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
