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:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:12:56 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
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: <20210108131256.GG3565223@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <20201218193033.6138-1-jarod@redhat.com>
 <20201228101145.GC3565223@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20210107235813.GB29828@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210107235813.GB29828@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:58:13AM CET, jarod@redhat.com wrote:
>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.

Do you know the reason, other than "nostalgia"?