Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:08:04 +0300 From: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> To: Marc G.Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: use of ng_fec ... Message-ID: <E1DBUVY-000Mww-00._pppp-mail-ru@f37.mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050315172937.V92893@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> After reading up on the Cisco stuff that ng_fec is meant for, I'm curious > as to whether there is a way of determining if its needed ... in my case, > I have one server, two ethernets but all attaching to the same switch ... > is there some way of determining if the interface(s) (on either hte > FreeBSD box, or the Cisco switch) is "overly busy", that load balancing > would be beneficial? You're getting fault tolerance and basic load balancing (Layer 2) with Cisco EtherChannel technology. The load balancing on Catalyst 2950 uses the least significant bit of you peer's MAC address. So, you would benefit from load balancing only if you talk to many peers on your broadcat(s). Fault tolerance will work anyway. Then moving to Layer 3 you assign as much aliases to your virtual fec0 interface as you wish without messing up with routing. > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1DBUVY-000Mww-00._pppp-mail-ru>