Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"
Jaikumar Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> > You don't want a bond, you want a bridge.
> >
> > Bonding takes two interfaces that talk to the same switch on the
> > other side, and makes them into one bond nic. You need support
> > on the switch, too, which is unlikely in a D-Link 8-port unless
> > it has a management interface -- I think they don't bother under
> > 16 or 24 ports, and even then it's an extra-cost option.
> Just see this webpage on
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/13/html/advanced_overcloud_customization/overcloud-network-interface-bonding
> it says :
>
> bond_mode=active-backup
>
> This mode offers active/standby failover where the standby NIC resumes
> network operations when the active connection fails. Only one MAC
> address is presented to the physical switch. This mode does not
> require any special switch support or configuration,and works when the
> links are connected to separate switches. This mode does not provide
> load balancing.
>
> ** This mode does not require any special switch support or
> configuration -- stated in the above para.
> Now, with this is not really clear where the problem is?
You still want bridging, not bonding.
WiFi doesn't have a cable, so it can't tell you when the
connection goes away, and it can't decide by itself to bring up
a connection. You need a management program that will pick a
network from SSID, negotiate any necessary encryption, and do
all that with a MAC address that does not conflict with another
one on the network.
The bond driver itself can't do that. You might be able to get a
higher-order system to take care of it --
/etc/network/interfaces *may* be able to figure out a way,
Network Manager might handle this case -- but I'll bet you a
shiny nickel you will have reliability issues that are much
worse than just connecting it to the wired ethernet and leaving
it alone.
-dsr-
Reply to: