Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"David S. Miller" wrote:
>    From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
> 
>    Okay, that makes me even more curious why we don't send successive
>    packets out successive pipes in a bonded link.
> 
> This is not done because it leads to packet reordering which
> if bad enough can trigger retransmits.
> 
> Scott Feldman's posting mentioned this, as did one other I
> think.

I did see those posts, but then I saw yours on how the linux receive end does the right thing with
regards to reordering, and that confused me.

So if I have it right linux-linux could theoretically work okay with a single stream over multiple
links (potentially causing lots of reordering), but linux-router would not work well.


Chris
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux