Re: Canonical way to configure bonds for Bullseye

From	George Shuklin <george.shuklin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Canonical way to configure bonds for Bullseye
Date	2021-08-31 11:30 +0200
Message-ID	<CS8fD-1UK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<CRNbb-4Pc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <CRQiJ-6Va-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 30/08/2021 17:18, Dan Ritter wrote:
> George Shuklin wrote:
>
>
> We are building Debian bullsye images for our bare-metal servers, and there
> is a bit of ambiguity on 'canonical way to configure network bonds'.
> Wiki gives options with ifenslave and systemd-networkd, and there is an
> option to do it with post-up and ip route.
> ifenslave is broken due to #991930, but it can be easily patched.
>
>
> Which way is least surprise for a Debian user (for you)?
>
> 1. bond-slaves in interfaces
>
> Example:
>
> auto bond0
>
>    iface bond0
>
>    inet static
>
>    bond-slaves eth0 eth1
> bond interfaces imply a nice static config, so the interfaces
> file is definitely least surprising.

Thank you for feedback!

Now I need to choose between `bond-slave` and `slave` stanza.

There are two pages in wiki, contradicting each other:

https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding#Configuration_-_Example_1

Says to to use `bond-slaves`

and

https://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration

says to use 'slaves' directive.

It looks very confusing.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Canonical way to configure bonds for Bullseye George Shuklin <george.shuklin@gmail.com> - 2021-08-30 13:00 +0200
  Re: Canonical way to configure bonds for Bullseye Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-08-30 16:20 +0200
    Re: Canonical way to configure bonds for Bullseye George Shuklin <george.shuklin@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 11:30 +0200

csiph-web