How about the case where LACP fails to negotiate? Should we fall back
to active-backup if flood_vlans are configured?
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:55:29PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Personally I think it's better to just fail. This will force someone
> configuring a bond to notice the problem and deal with it. I'm
> worried about people deploying active-backup bond's in production when
> they really intend slb bonds.
>
> That said, it's mostly an aesthetic issue and I don't feel
> particularly strongly about it.
>
> Ethan
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 21:17, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:22:07PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> >> This seems fine, I would go slightly further though.
> >>
> >>
> >> > + ? ?if (s->balance == BM_SLB && port->bridge->cfg->n_flood_vlans) {
> >> > + ? ? ? ?VLOG_WARN("port %s: SLB bonds are incompatible with
> >> > flood_vlans, "
> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"please use another bond type or disable flood_vlans",
> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?port->name);
> >> > + ? ?}
> >>
> >> I would change this warning to an error, and actually fail to create
> >> the port in this case. ?I'm afraid people are going to ignore the
> >> warning in the log. ?If you disagree, go ahead and merge.
> >
> > What do you think of forcing the bond to active-backup mode? ?Then it
> > will still work, at least.
> >
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
