AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Rendell.Fong@lsi.com>,<Bill.Fisher@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	1258770764.1793.139.camel@rendellf
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:41:55 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: Rendell Fong <Rendell.Fong@lsi.com>
Cc: "Fisher, Bill" <Bill.Fisher@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: bonding net device usage
Message-ID: <20091120184155.54f65548@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <1258770764.1793.139.camel@rendellf>
References: <1258770764.1793.139.camel@rendellf>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:32:44 -0700 Rendell Fong <Rendell.Fong@lsi.com>
wrote:

> After thinking about Max's comments a while back regarding
> implementation of the aggregation lport type, I'm not sure whether we
> ought to be using the bonding device.  If I understand correctly. the
> expected behavior is not to do load balancing but just using common
> IPs and mac addresses amongst different physical ports.  Connections
> are to be maintained with respect to whatever port they were
> established on. It seems to me that this can be accomplished without
> using the bonding net device at all.
> 
> Am I correct?  Comments?


Well, yes, you're always correct.

But that expectation was, I thought, based on the way link agg worked
in our implementation in EEE.  The bonding driver might require a
different switch configuration that what we currently require, but
otherwise it should be right.  Consult the S-X Network Bible for
details.

/n/software/SystemX/ComponentDocs/SystemX_IP_Networking.doc