[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode

在 2022/3/18 19:34, Jiri Pirko 写道:
> Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:49:02AM CET, wrote:
>> 在 2022/3/17 16:11, Jiri Pirko 写道:
>>> Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:15:21AM CET, wrote:
>>>> This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode.
>>>> Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <>
>>> 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-21 02:19    [W:0.087 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site