[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 Kubilay Kocak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-patch

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 Steven Hartland changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #20 from eu...@grosbein.net --- RSTP is very simple thing. And it is general solution suitable for IPv4, IPv6, vlan trunk, PPPoE, IPX or anything else because it deals with links at layer 2. -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #21 from p...@itassistans.se --- I would not call RSTP "simple" compared to sending a single broadcast frame (of any protocol) out on the new active NIC on a failover, especially not once you consider that to use it you have to

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #22 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to pvz from comment #21) "single broadcast frame" won't work for all cases, f.e. multiple vlans over lagg but RSTP will. And there is no rocket science in creating bridge as RSTP runs

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #11 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to weberge42 from comment #8) Each switch has its "MAC aging" time, so one may configure switch so that it does not "take ages to see traffic flowing again". And yes, lagg's failover

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #12 from weberg...@gmail.com --- Yes, but each switch has different default and miniumum values. Fortiswitch: 10s, HP Procurve 60s, don't know about cisco. So that would mean XXs no service in case of a failover which may be

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #13 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to weberge42 from comment #12) > each switch has different default and miniumum values Yes, and one should not depend on default values but configure switches as required. > But what

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #14 from p...@itassistans.se --- The patch could probably be simplified. I suggested when I created the case four years ago that the solution might be to send out a gratuitous ARP. However, that would not seem to be a correct

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #15 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to pvz from comment #14) > the hypothetical but plausible scenario That's competly real scenario. My FreeBSD-based PPPoE BRAS'es run hundreds of VLANs over lagg port-channels and each

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #19 from weberg...@gmail.com --- Whqt would be the correct setup using 1 Server, 2 Nics and 2 non stacked Switches to achive a basic failover scenario for IPv4 ? RSTP (as STP usually is) sounds too complicated for this. The

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #16 from p...@itassistans.se --- In this case it's not even a case of a protocol though, it's rather just some functionality to prod even the dumbest stack of switches that are smart enough to know about MAC learning to do the

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #17 from weberg...@gmail.com --- > Yes, and one should not depend on default values but configure switches as > required. Bad luck if the MINIMUM value is 60s. > If one connects redundant layer-2 links to different switches,

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #18 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to weberge42 from comment #17) > If failover using lagg with different switches is not supported or is > considered exotic, the feature should be removed. The docs do not mention >

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 Kubilay Kocak changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #10 from weberg...@gmail.com --- Maybe the smaller patch from https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201916 is sufficient. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #6 from weberg...@gmail.com --- (In reply to eugen from comment #5) i know that link aggregation needs to configured on the switch(es) too. but i'm not talking about link aggregation - i'm (and the opener) are talking about

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #8 from weberg...@gmail.com --- (In reply to eugen from comment #7) Yes, but if you have the following setup: Server NIC1 - Switch 1 Server NIC2 - Switch 2 If NIC1 is active and Switch 1 fails, NIC2 becomes active and it

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #7 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to weberge42 from comment #6) In case of real failure, physical link goes down and switch updates its table at once. There are patches for em(4)/igb(4) drivers that brings link down in

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 Kubilay Kocak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|In Progress |Open

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #5 from eu...@grosbein.net --- (In reply to weberge42 from comment #4) AFAIK, link aggregation (lagg) is not supposed to be used this way, without special switch configuration. And lagg IS usable if you do things right:

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 weberg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||weberg...@gmail.com ---

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Some

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 --- Comment #3 from Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org --- Created attachment 150794 -- https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150794action=edit Send gratuitous ARP on primary port status change Add patch posted to freebsd-net

[Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226 Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-patch |needs-qa, patch