On 23/07/18 09:15, Toshiaki Makita wrote: > On 2018/07/21 1:41, Roopa Prabhu wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Hemminger >> <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Trying to understand this. >>> >>> Is it the case that what you are trying to solve is the way MLAG >>> and bridging interact on the Linux side or more a limitation of how >>> switches operate? Wouldn't this work? >> >> not a limitation. Its the way MLAG works on the switch side >> >>> >>> br0 -- team0 -- eth1 >>> +- eth2 >>> >>> The bridge would only have fdb entries for the team device. >>> Why do eth1 and eth2 have to be master devices? Why would eth1 >>> and eth2 need to be bridge ports. >> >> >> Two switches acting in a MLAG pair are connected by the peerlink >> interface which is a bridge port. >> >> the config on one of the switches looks like the below. The other >> switch also has a similar config. >> eth0 is connected to one port on the server. And the server is >> connected to both switches. >> >> >> br0 -- team0---eth0 >> | >> -- switch-peerlink >> >> switch-peerlink becomes the failover/backport port when say team0 to >> the server goes down. > > I feel like this kind of diagram in commitlog would help us understand > what you/Nikolay want to do. I was also not able to get why team/bonding > is not an option reading commitlog. (Now I think I understand it thanks > to Roopa's explanation.) > Fair enough, I'll send v3 with Roopa's explanation and diagram added. Thanks, Nik
