Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 18:58:13 -0500
From:   Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Davis <tadavis@lbl.gov>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] bonding: add a vlan+srcmac tx hashing option
Message-ID: <20210107235813.GB29828@redhat.com>
References: <20201218193033.6138-1-jarod@redhat.com>
 <20201228101145.GC3565223@nanopsycho.orion>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201228101145.GC3565223@nanopsycho.orion>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:11:45AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:30:33PM CET, jarod@redhat.com wrote:
> >This comes from an end-user request, where they're running multiple VMs on
> >hosts with bonded interfaces connected to some interest switch topologies,
> >where 802.3ad isn't an option. They're currently running a proprietary
> >solution that effectively achieves load-balancing of VMs and bandwidth
> >utilization improvements with a similar form of transmission algorithm.
> >
> >Basically, each VM has it's own vlan, so it always sends its traffic out
> >the same interface, unless that interface fails. Traffic gets split
> >between the interfaces, maintaining a consistent path, with failover still
> >available if an interface goes down.
> >
> >This has been rudimetarily tested to provide similar results, suitable for
> >them to use to move off their current proprietary solution.
> >
> >Still on the TODO list, if these even looks sane to begin with, is
> >fleshing out Documentation/networking/bonding.rst.
> 
> Jarod, did you consider using team driver instead ? :)

That's actually one of the things that was suggested, since team I believe
already has support for this, but the user really wants to use bonding.
We're finding that a lot of users really still prefer bonding over team.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com