Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2022 10:52:35 +0100 | From | Jiri Pirko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode |
| |
Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:17:34AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote: > >在 2022/3/18 19:34, Jiri Pirko 写道: >> 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. > > >Hi jiri > > >Changing to Lacp means risk to our online service requring high available. > >Also,we have multiple DCs installed bond6,it is huge cost to change it.
So? This is 0 argument in this discussion. I believe that adding this amount of code to bonding for use case that could be simply replaced by LACP is wrong and we should not do that. The oridingal ALB/RLB implementation was done when LACP was not that widely used. But now it is 2022 - different story.
| |