From danken at redhat.com Mon Mar 23 05:32:55 2015
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5516453699167958562=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com>
To: users at ovirt.org
Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A_=5Bovirt-users=5D_=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D=3A_bonding_802=2E3ad?=
 =?utf-8?q?_mode?=
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:32:51 +0000
Message-ID: <20150323093251.GC3052@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: 550C414D.8000409@abes.fr

--===============5516453699167958562==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:48:29PM +0100, Nathana=C3=ABl Blanchet wrote:
> Hello, thanks for the explanation, but I did'nt find any reason about
> incompatibility between mode 0 and bridge... Can you give me some sources
> about this? Ovirt doesn't actually allow it, so it must exist a good reas=
on
> for that.

I can quote Jiri Pirko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1094842#c0
"""
Do not use tlb or alb in bridge, never! It does not work, that's it. The
reason is it mangles source macs in xmit frames and arps. When it is
possible, just use mode 4 (lacp). That should be always possible because
all enterprise switches support that. Generally, for 99% of use cases,
you *should* use mode 4. There is no reason to use other modes.
"""

> But for my own, I have several single kvm hosts that support bridge over
> bonding in mode 0 and vms run fine on it...
> So, someone can share his experience about this kind of detail?
> =

> ps: ovirt has a field for configuring custom mode whereas mode 0 is not
> listed in the predifined list, I didn't make any test, but it seem to be =
at
> least possible.

The bug referred above intends to make it a bit harder to make this
mistake. But in the good-old Un*x way, oVirt allows you to tweak things
that you actually should not, for fun or research.

--===============5516453699167958562==--

