Thread (18 messages) 18 messages, 9 authors, 2008-10-01

Re: [RFC] bonding: add better ipv6 failover support

From: Vlad Yasevich <hidden>
Date: 2008-09-26 19:55:16

Brian Haley wrote:
David Stevens wrote:
quoted
1) You're calling mld_send_report() directly, which will send the MLD
        report synchronously. It should use the randomized timer (see
igmp6_join_group).
        A mass failover (e.g., a power event in a cluster) would blast
all of these at once,
        which is why the randomized timer is required for gratuitous
reports. This
        should use a randomized timer, like mld_ifc_start_timer(), but
joining the
        group all by itself will do that.
Ok, I'll try and change this code to spin through all the multicast
addresses on the master and call igmp6_join_group() instead.
I think you would need to call igmp6_leave_group before switching the active
and then join group on the new active.
quoted
2) There is already a configurable and code for unsolicited neighbor
advertisements
        when adding an address-- why not use that? In fact, wouldn't
just moving the
        failing device's address list to the new device do everything
you want, since
        adding an address already sends unsolicited neighbor
advertisements,
        joins the solicited node address, etc.? Or am I missing
something?
In this case the address is configured on the bond master, each slave is
just used for transmit/receive.  While I could have sent an unsolicited
NA, sending an NS is much easier, especially since it's only notifying
the switch that the address has moved.
Why?  NS and NA take exactly the same code paths.  The only difference
appears to be source address lookup, but you don't need to worry about it
since you know the source address ahead of time.

-vlad
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help