Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:39:42PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
[...]
>> Why would you want to turn this off?
>
>When you connect active-backup bonds to 2 separate switches that are in
>'distant' parts of the network you can end up with a bunch of unwanted
>multicast data flowing everywhere and if you don't care whether or not
>your multicast traffic is highly available then it just seems like
>noise. I thought the flexibility seemed nice.
Ok, I can buy the "multicast spew" argument.
>> Also, I've got a replacement patch for this functionality that
>> seems to be better in all regards. It sends bonus IGMP joins when a
>> failover occurs, rather than simply duplicating them on all slaves (the
>> current system can leave switches in the dark if the slaves fail back to
>> the originals). As chance would have it, I'm planning to post it as
>> part of a set in a a little while.
>>
>
>That sounds like a nice add-on to the existing functionality. I can see
>the value in something dynamic like that, but I can also see the value
>in something static like the functionality we have. Did you plan to
>keep the existing functionality intact or just have it done dynamically?
Well, I posted the patch just a bit ago, so you can see for
yourself, but no, it removes the existing "copy IGMP everywhere"
behavior. I couldn't really think of an advantage to flooding
everywhere all the time if the hose is re-aimed during failover (if
you'll pardon my cheesy metaphor).
>Is this separate from your workqueue/refactoring patch or does it work
>on the existing code?
This is separate, for the current mainline.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
