James Carlson wrote:
> 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. ;-}
>
>
Um. Ok. But that doesn't really help me learn *why* it's not technically
possible (or right) to do it, does it?
Fortunately Neil's reply did fill in more of those details.
>> 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.
I agree.
> 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.
>
>
In what way would people shoot themselves in the foot with it? I guess
I'm not seeing the danger?
Is it just the packet ordering overhead Neil mentions?
-Kyle
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
