Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
Roland Dreier wrote on 2007-10-13: The bonding sources have a few occurrences of EOPNOTSUPP. Unless I missed something, they are all related to setting the hardware address of the interface. AFAICS this is impossible with IP over FireWire. If it is crucial to bonding to be able to change the slaves' hardware addresses, then you are out of luck. There are a few changes to the bonding driver pending that will add support for bonding IP-over-InfiniBand interfaces. IPoIB also cannot change its HW address, so the patches address that issue. Once those patches land, bonding eth1394 interfaces may just work. Bill Fink wrote on 2007-10-14: While that might allow multiple eth1394 interfaces to be bonded, I believe the user wanted to bond an eth1394 interface with a normal Ethernet interface, and I don't think that will work even with the IPoIB bonding changes, since bonding of different fundamental types of network interfaces still won't be supported, and I'm pretty sure eth1394 is not considered a standard Ethernet interface (different MAC address format for one thing). Karl, you could try kernel 2.6.24(.2) which AFAIU features the mentioned changes. -- Stefan Richter -=-==--- --=- =--== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
Failover between disparate link-types sounds like a job for IP and routing. rick jones - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Stefan Richter wrote: Roland Dreier wrote: There are a few changes to the bonding driver pending that will add support for bonding IP-over-InfiniBand interfaces. IPoIB also cannot change its HW address, so the patches address that issue. Once those patches land, bonding eth1394 interfaces may just work. Sounds promising. I will keep an eye on it. While that might allow multiple eth1394 interfaces to be bonded, I believe the user wanted to bond an eth1394 interface with a normal Ethernet interface, and I don't think that will work even with the IPoIB bonding changes, since bonding of different fundamental types of network interfaces still won't be supported, and I'm pretty sure eth1394 is not considered a standard Ethernet interface (different MAC address format for one thing). -Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
Bill Fink wrote: I believe the user wanted to bond an eth1394 interface with a normal Ethernet interface, and I don't think that will work even with the IPoIB bonding changes, since bonding of different fundamental types of network interfaces still won't be supported, and I'm pretty sure eth1394 is not considered a standard Ethernet interface (different MAC address format for one thing). True, the MAC addresses, frame headers (OSI layer 2?) and so on are different. Of course the case which the original poster had in mind, bonding FireWire with Ethernet, would be at least as interesting as bonding several FireWire interfaces, since most FireWire equipped machines come with only one FireWire link and one or two Ethernet links. -- Stefan Richter -=-=-=== =-=- -===- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
(Adding Cc: netdev) Karl Svec wrote to linux1394-devel: I'm trying to create a bonded network interface for an Xdmx setup out of a regular ethernet device (sungem) and a firewire ethernet (eth1394) device. However, ifenslave fails on the firewire device, and gives me the following output: Master 'bond0' : Error : SIOCBONDENSLAVE failed : Operation not supported I'm assuming that this error message means that bonding support is not implemented in the eth1394 driver. If this is the case, I'd like to request that bonding support be added to the eth1394 driver. Is this a reasonable request (i.e. is this something that was left out of the driver because it is difficult to do, or was it left out because nobody anticipated anyone using this feature)? I'm happy to do any testing. Thanks for your time, What criteria has a networking driver to fulfill to be interoperable with the bonding driver? From a brief look at the top of the files in linux/drivers/net/bonding/, it appears that it is meant for Ethernet drivers. Unlike eth1394's name suggests, it is not Ethernet over FireWire but IPv4 over FireWire, in a partial implementation of RFC 2734. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2734.html What is missing to fully support RFC 2734 is multicast capability. http://lxr.linux.no/source/drivers/ieee1394/eth1394.c#L25 The bonding sources have a few occurrences of EOPNOTSUPP. Unless I missed something, they are all related to setting the hardware address of the interface. AFAICS this is impossible with IP over FireWire. If it is crucial to bonding to be able to change the slaves' hardware addresses, then you are out of luck. -- Stefan Richter -=-=-=== =-=- -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
The bonding sources have a few occurrences of EOPNOTSUPP. Unless I missed something, they are all related to setting the hardware address of the interface. AFAICS this is impossible with IP over FireWire. If it is crucial to bonding to be able to change the slaves' hardware addresses, then you are out of luck. There are a few changes to the bonding driver pending that will add support for bonding IP-over-InfiniBand interfaces. IPoIB also cannot change its HW address, so the patches address that issue. Once those patches land, bonding eth1394 interfaces may just work. - R. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Bonding support for eth1394?
Roland Dreier wrote: There are a few changes to the bonding driver pending that will add support for bonding IP-over-InfiniBand interfaces. IPoIB also cannot change its HW address, so the patches address that issue. Once those patches land, bonding eth1394 interfaces may just work. Sounds promising. I will keep an eye on it. -- Stefan Richter -=-=-=== =-=- -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
