Possible mistake on handbook - Section 30.7: Link Aggregation

[Rafael Possamai]

I am glad I could help. Thank you everyone who participated in this thread.


Best,

Rafael



On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dru Lavigne <dru.lavigne at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> >Dne 29.3.2014 3:32, Thomas Hoffmann napsal(a):
> >>> I was reading the handbook and stumbled upon the following sentence:
> >>>
> >>> "Failover allows traffic to continue to flow even if an interface
> becomes
> >>> available."
> >>
> >> Also, does "an interface" convey what we need here? For any given N-way
> >> aggregation, can't we have N-1 (one or more, but not all) interfaces
> become
> >> unavailable and still have a working link?
> >
> >And Cpt. Obvious may add an interface is not enough, you can have four
> >interfaces aggregated in the bond, but there is still no flow without a
> >link. To add even more chaos, both the physical and virtual interfaces
> >are mentioned in the sentence preceding the one which Rafael mentions.
> >
> >That said, what about something like following?
> >
> >Failover allows traffic to continue to flow if at least one aggregated
> >network interface has link established.
>
>
>
> I've commited an edit in r44394. Please let me know if further
> wordsmithing is needed to make it clearer.
>
> Thanks Rafael for pointing this out!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dru
>
>