I am glad I could help. Thank you everyone who participated in this thread.
Best, Rafael On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dru Lavigne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >Dne 29.3.2014 3:32, Thomas Hoffmann napsal(a): > >>> I was reading the handbook and stumbled upon the following sentence: > >>> > >>> "Failover allows traffic to continue to flow even if an interface > becomes > >>> available." > >> > >> Also, does "an interface" convey what we need here? For any given N-way > >> aggregation, can't we have N-1 (one or more, but not all) interfaces > become > >> unavailable and still have a working link? > > > >And Cpt. Obvious may add an interface is not enough, you can have four > >interfaces aggregated in the bond, but there is still no flow without a > >link. To add even more chaos, both the physical and virtual interfaces > >are mentioned in the sentence preceding the one which Rafael mentions. > > > >That said, what about something like following? > > > >Failover allows traffic to continue to flow if at least one aggregated > >network interface has link established. > > > > I've commited an edit in r44394. Please let me know if further > wordsmithing is needed to make it clearer. > > Thanks Rafael for pointing this out! > > Cheers, > > Dru > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
