Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 05 Oct 2015 07:52:19 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 156226] [lagg]: failover does not announce the failover to switch
Message-ID:  <bug-156226-2472-ReuixGXsZ8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-156226-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-156226-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156226

--- Comment #12 from weberge42@gmail.com ---
Yes, but each switch has different default and miniumum values.
Fortiswitch: 10s, HP Procurve 60s, don't know about cisco.

So that would mean XXs no service in case of a failover which may be acceptable
if its short enough. But what if you can't (or not allowed) to change this
settings ? 

I don't quite understand what you mean with:

>And yes, lagg's failover needs that NIC drivers bring link down in case of >voluntary "ifconfig down"

Who issues the ifconfig down ? I just don't see any relationship between manual
ifconfig in case of a failover.
Can you please elaborate this a bit more ? Maybe i'm missing something.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-156226-2472-ReuixGXsZ8>