lagg(4) and failover

[Max Laier]

On Tuesday 12 August 2008 13:43:29 Marian Hettwer wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:30:12 +0100, Pete French
>
> <petefrench at ticketswitch.com> wrote:
> >> However, IMO lacp doesn't solve that problem. lacp is used for link
> >> aggregation, not failover.
> >
> > It does both - if one of the links becomes unavailable then it will
> > stop using it. We use this for failover and it works fine, the only
> > caveat being that your LACP device at the far end needs to look like
> > a single phsyical device (the nicer Cisco switches do this quite happily)
>
> thanks for that info.
>
> >> The manpage states "In the event of changes in physical
> >
> > connectivity...".
> >
> >> Again, does that mean, the link needs to be physically unavailable? If
> >
> > so,
> >
> >> it'll be the same behaviour as in failover mode and doesn't solve my
> >> problem of a misconfigured switch...
> >
> > lagg is to handle failover at the physical layer for when one of your
> > ether ports fails, or someone unplugs a cable. If I understand you
> > correctly you are looking for something at the next layer up, to handle
> > a problem where the ports work fine, but are not going to their expected
> > destinations. lagg won't do this.
>
> Thats unfortunate...
> bonding in Linux is capable of doing this and solaris too.
> Well then. At least everythings clear now. And in the end, clarifing things
> was the reason for that mail thread :)

You are looking for net/ifstated

-- 
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier at freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier at EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News