Can't get NIC Bonding with active-backup working
Hi all,
Have tried to get NIC Bonding working as per wiki.debian.org/Bonding.
Each NIC is connected to a different switch for redundancy rather than
bandwidth purposes (insulate against a switch failure). I'm using the
active-backup mode for HA failover.
output from cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet static
address 192.168.166.164
netmask 255.255.255.240
network 192.168.166.160
gateway 192.168.166.161
slaves eth0 eth1
bond_mode active-backup
bond_miimon 100
bond_downdelay 200
bond_updelay 200
output from cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0 as follows:
Ethernet Channel Bonding Driver: v3.5.0 (November 4, 2008)
Bonding Mode: fault-tolerance (active-backup)
Primary Slave: None
Currently Active Slave: eth0
MII Status: up
MII Polling Interval (ms): 100
Up Delay (ms): 200
Down Delay (ms): 200
Slave Interface: eth0
MII Status: up
Link Failure Count: 0
Permanent HW addr: b8:ab:6f:92:eb:c3
Slave Interface: eth1
MII Status: up
Link Failure Count: 0
Permanent HW addr: b8:ab:6f:92:eb:c4
If I then pull a cable (or use ifconfig eth0 down) I get the following
in the syslog:
Jan 23 11:21:50 host-1 kernel: [55852.565975] bonding: bond0: link
status down for active interface eth0, disabling it in 200 ms.
Jan 23 11:21:51 host-1 kernel: [55852.761549] bonding: bond0: link
status definitely down for interface eth0, disabling it
Jan 23 11:21:51 host-1 kernel: [55852.761555] bonding: bond0: making
interface eth1 the new active one.
All looks good... but... ping from host-1 produces Destination host
unreachable (with the icmp errors coming from the IP of the bond0 device
itself). And my remote ssh session dies. Good job I have KVM access :)
So it's not working. This setup seems so simple I can't see where
anything could be wrong, so I'm starting to suspect a problem with the
switch. Maybe the switch(es) are being too clever? But then again maybe
I've done something wrong.
What can I do to find out what's going on? I'm using Squeeze (current
point release) and Kernel 2.6.32-5-amd64.
Reply to: