Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:17:34 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode | From | 孙守鑫 <> |
| |
在 2022/3/18 19:34, Jiri Pirko 写道: > Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:49:02AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote: >> 在 2022/3/17 16:11, Jiri Pirko 写道: >>> Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:15:21AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote: >>>> This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode. >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <huyd12@chinatelecom.cn> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn> >>> Could you please reply to my question I asked for v1: >>> Out of curiosity, what is exactly your usecase? I'm asking because >>> I don't see any good reason to use RLB/ALB modes. I have to be missing >>> something. >>> >>> This is adding a lot of code in bonding that needs to be maintained. >>> However, if there is no particular need to add it, why would we? >>> >>> Could you please spell out why exactly do you need this? I'm pretty sure >>> that in the end well find out, that you really don't need this at all. >>> >>> Thanks! >> >> This patch is certainly aim fix one real issue in ou lab. >> For historical inheritance, the bond6 with ipv4 is widely used in our lab. >> We started to support ipv6 for all service last year, networking operation >> and maintenance team >> think it does work with ipv6 ALB capacity take it for granted due to bond6's >> specification >> but it doesn't work in the end. as you know, it is impossible to change link >> neworking to LACP >> because of huge cost and effective to online server. > I don't follow. Why exactly can't you use LACP? Every switch supports > it.
Hi jiri
Changing to Lacp means risk to our online service requring high available.
Also,we have multiple DCs installed bond6,it is huge cost to change it.
|  |