Kyle McDonald writes: > I'm sure there's a technical reason why it can't be done (I imagine it > would have been if possible.) but I'd love to educate myself on what the > reason is why LACP Load balancing doesn't have a 'round-robin' option in > addition to the L2,L3,L4 src/dst options it has now?
Because it's evil and wrong. ;-} > What am I missing? It could certainly be done quite easily, and it's been discussed many times. See, for instance, CR 6538146. I don't really agree with the evaluation of that bug, because standards compliance is _never_ a good reason to avoid supporting an optional feature that someone wants. But I do somewhat support closing it out as "will not fix," as it'd be a foolish thing to implement, and providing sufficient caveats for the documentation would be hard. It'd be a call generator, at least. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
