Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb mode

[孙守鑫 <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>]

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.