Carson Gaspar wrote: > --On Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:15 AM +0100 Robin Breathe > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Would you mind elaborating? I'm looking for resilience (i.e. IPMP) not >> performance (which, if I understand correctly, is what channel bonding >> gives you)? By my understanding, pfil's ipmp interface is meant to give >> you a logical handle to the "active" interface within an IPMP group. It >> seems logical that the "to if:ip" syntax should work in this context. If >> this understanding is wrong, please enlighten me :) > > I suggest you google a little more. Channel bonding provides resilience. > It can also provide additional performance, if you wish (degrading > gracefully as you loose links). IPMP is a hack Sun created because their > driver model couldn't handle true bonding - that has been fixed in > Solaris 10, but only for certain drivers (many have yet to be ported to > the new framework).
Unfortunately Solaris 10 on these machines isn't an option for us at this point (vendor support for services, etc). Also the Sun Trunking product (the only Solaris 9 solution I found) doesn't support all of our hardware (V240s, V440s & V1280s with bge, ce & qfe interfaces and inter-interface-family pairs) :\ IPMP was configured by Sun Professional Services, it provides our required level of resilience, and like it or not I have to live with it. I won't debate that Channel Bonding would be a better solution (particularly with Solaris 10), but I don't believe it's an option. So, back to my original question: should the pfil ipmp interface be able to do this, and if not, why not? Surely it just provides a logical name pointing to the "active" member of the ipmp group?! If this is the case, I don't see any reason for it not to work with fastroute. Best regards, Robin -- Robin Breathe, Computer Services, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1865 483685 Fax: +44 1865 483073
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
