Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #239452 > unrolled thread
| Started by | George Shuklin <george.shuklin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-30 13:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-08-31 11:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
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
| From | George Shuklin <george.shuklin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 13:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Canonical way to configure bonds for Bullseye |
| Message-ID | <CRNbb-4Pc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hello! 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 2. systemd-networkd unit .netdev in /etc/systemd/network. 3. Manual operations in interfaces: post-up ip link add bond0 type bond ... Which way is least surprise for you?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-30 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CRQiJ-6Va-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #239452 |
George Shuklin wrote: > Hello! > > > 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. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Shuklin <george.shuklin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-31 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CS8fD-1UK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #239462 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web