Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:34:52 +0100 | From | Jiri Pirko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode |
| |
Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:49:02AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote: > >在 2022/3/17 16:11, Jiri Pirko 写道: >> Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:15:21AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote: >> > This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <huyd12@chinatelecom.cn> >> > Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn> >> >> Could you please reply to my question I asked for v1: >> Out of curiosity, what is exactly your usecase? I'm asking because >> I don't see any good reason to use RLB/ALB modes. I have to be missing >> something. >> >> This is adding a lot of code in bonding that needs to be maintained. >> However, if there is no particular need to add it, why would we? >> >> Could you please spell out why exactly do you need this? I'm pretty sure >> that in the end well find out, that you really don't need this at all. >> >> Thanks! > > >This patch is certainly aim fix one real issue in ou lab. >For historical inheritance, the bond6 with ipv4 is widely used in our lab. >We started to support ipv6 for all service last year, networking operation >and maintenance team >think it does work with ipv6 ALB capacity take it for granted due to bond6's >specification >but it doesn't work in the end. as you know, it is impossible to change link >neworking to LACP >because of huge cost and effective to online server.
I don't follow. Why exactly can't you use LACP? Every switch supports it.
| |