[ovs-discuss] Bonding problems with redundant physical switching
blp at nicira.com
Tue Sep 14 21:59:38 UTC 2010
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:48:12PM +0200, Christian Fischer wrote:
> On Friday September 10 2010 21:36:50 Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:23:30PM +0200, Christian Fischer wrote:
> > > I try to get nic bonds working with OpenvSwitch-0.99.2 (XCP-0.5.0).
> > > Due to missing xcp administration documentation I've started with the
> > > XenServer-5.6 administration guide.
> > >
> > > There is stated that SLB bonding is an active/active mode.
> > >
> > > If I create bonds with OpenvSwitch then they are active/passive.
> Thanks Ben for the reply.
> > The SLB bonding implemented by Open vSwitch is indeed active/active.
> > Please explain why you think that it is active/passive.
> The bond is not reponding to packages arriving eth1, that's why I thought eth1
> is passive.
> # ovs-appctl bond/show bond0
> updelay: 200 ms
> downdelay: 0 ms
> next rebalance: 562 ms
> slave eth1: enabled
> slave eth0: enabled
> active slave
> hash 44: 1 kB load
> Is it active/active for sending or for sending and receiving?
It is active/active for sending and receiving. (Packets from any given
source MAC are assigned to a particular slave though.)
Broadcasts and multicasts are only accepted on the "active slave",
however; otherwise such packets would be received in duplicate. And
there are a few special rules for similar corner cases, if I recall
> > > I've redundant physical switching for the bond networks, but without
> > > spanning tree support (HP 1810G), therefore no inter switch links. If
> > > on one side NIC0 active and on the other side NIC1 active then
> > > connectivity is broken. Normally i would think that it should be
> > > possible to create a trunk between two nodes running identical trunk
> > > mode without any switching, in this case there's also no ISL.
> > I don't understand this paragraph.
> All physical cluster nodes have different physical networks, 2 network
> interfaces bonded each. There are two physical switches, the networks have
> different VlanIDs. There's no network link between both switches, the
> switches have no spanning tree protocol support.
The important question here is, are the two links within a bond
connected to the same switch? They should be; that is the intended and
> Shouldn't both slaves listen for incoming packages?
Yes; they do (except for broadcast and multicasts; see above).
> What should happen if one connects two hosts with two bonded NICs each
> directly without any switches?
In other words, host0 has bond0 composed of eth0 and eth1, and host1 has
bond1 composed of eth2 and eth3, eth0 is connected to eth2 with a cable,
and eth1 is connected to eth3 with a cable? I think that should work
More information about the discuss