On 2018/07/21 1:41, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org> 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.) -- Toshiaki Makita
