Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:30:47 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@xbsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux/FreeBSD Channel Bonding Interoperability Message-ID: <4297C9C7.8030403@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <1117230364.690.44.camel@cream.xbsd.org> References: <1117197753.2458.23.camel@ft-laptop.int.celeste.fr> <429766AB.6070803@elischer.org> <1117230364.690.44.camel@cream.xbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
from what I'm reading about teql you can do this with a couple of methods.. ipfw and the 'fwd' rule netgraph and ng_one2many there may be more.. teql doesn't seem to modify the packets in any way, just to make them go across several links so both of those should work I think. the ipfw fwd method would require ip addresses on both interfaces. the netgraph method may be able to do it without that requirement. (linking to an ng_eiface node with a single address). Florent Thoumie wrote: >Le Vendredi 27 mai 2005 à 11:27 -0700, Julian Elischer a écrit : > > >>probably this would be better in net@freebsd.org >> >> > > Moved to net@. > > > >>Florent Thoumie wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hey list. >>> >>> I'm advocating for FreeBSD for about 6 months now where I'm >>> working and they have the project to build their own router >>> (which will probably be based on WRAP). >>> >>> The good point is that the actual solution is running Linux >>> but it's not highly reliable. The bad point is that they're >>> using channel bonding (on both peers) and they don't want to >>> change one (or at least the system it runs). >>> >>> I've read about ng_fec and ng_onetomany, so I know channel >>> bonding is quite easy (seems so, according to web pages I've >>> found) but I guess FreeBSD and Linux won't work correctly. >>> If that's the case, I wondered if it could be much aspossible to add a >>> new node to "translate" stuff so that both could communicate >>> correctly. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>how you do it depends entirely on how they are doing the bonding in Linux. >>you do not give any clues as to what modules they are using. >> >> > > After some investigation, it seems they are using teql on > Linux, which is different from bonding (bonding doesn't seem > to be able to use two different connections types, especially > when these are not ethernet). I'd like to aggregate one ADSL > line with a SDSL line. I'm not sure teql works like > ng_onetomany. Stephen Montgomery-Smith told me by private email > that he knew somebody who successfully used Linux and FreeBSD > together to do bonding. I really need to try it, I'm just > lacking some hardware at the moment. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4297C9C7.8030403>