Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 10:52:35 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     =?utf-8?B?5a2Z5a6I6ZGr?= <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc:     j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net,
        davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        dsahern@kernel.org, oliver@neukum.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, huyd12@chinatelecom.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb
 mode
Message-ID: <YjhK43MgpFkLFDhS@nanopsycho>
References: <20220317061521.23985-1-sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
 <YjLtLdH9gmg7yaNl@nanopsycho>
 <1f7b15a6-861f-9762-a159-73d16c95eebc@chinatelecom.cn>
 <YjRuXPJzp2fKvMst@nanopsycho>
 <e24c1190-ba41-6ba5-0aca-463cac2a2b2f@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e24c1190-ba41-6ba5-0aca-463cac2a2b2f@chinatelecom.cn>
Precedence: bulk

Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:17:34AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote:
>
>在 2022/3/18 19:34, Jiri Pirko 写道:
>> Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:49:02AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote:
>> > 在 2022/3/17 16:11, Jiri Pirko 写道:
>> > > Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:15:21AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote:
>> > > > This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <huyd12@chinatelecom.cn>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
>> > > Could you please reply to my question I asked for v1:
>> > > Out of curiosity, what is exactly your usecase? I'm asking because
>> > > I don't see any good reason to use RLB/ALB modes. I have to be missing
>> > > something.
>> > > 
>> > > This is adding a lot of code in bonding that needs to be maintained.
>> > > However, if there is no particular need to add it, why would we?
>> > > 
>> > > Could you please spell out why exactly do you need this? I'm pretty sure
>> > > that in the end well find out, that you really don't need this at all.
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks!
>> > 
>> > This patch is certainly aim fix one real issue in ou lab.
>> > For historical inheritance, the bond6 with ipv4 is widely used in our lab.
>> > We started to support ipv6 for all service last year, networking operation
>> > and maintenance team
>> > think it does work with ipv6 ALB capacity take it for granted due to bond6's
>> > specification
>> > but it doesn't work in the end. as you know, it is impossible to change link
>> > neworking to LACP
>> > because of huge cost and effective to online server.
>> I don't follow. Why exactly can't you use LACP? Every switch supports
>> it.
>
>
>Hi jiri
>
>
>Changing to Lacp means risk  to our online service requring high available.
>
>Also,we have multiple DCs installed bond6,it is huge cost to change it.

So? This is 0 argument in this discussion. I believe that adding this
amount of code to bonding for use case that could be simply replaced by
LACP is wrong and we should not do that. The oridingal ALB/RLB
implementation was done when LACP was not that widely used. But now it
is 2022 - different story.