Contributed by todd on from the redundant-redundancy dept.
First released in OpenBSD 3.8, trunk(4) is used to aggregate multiple network interfaces as one virtual trunk interface. In English, this means you take two network cards, plug them both into the same (or a different switch) and you continue functioning even if you unplug one. As released in 3.8, the trunk(4) interface implemented a simple roundrobin protocol.
New in -current, there is a failover protocol. This permits specifying one of the network cards as the master, and a secondary one to be used if the primary one is observed to be unplugged. One ingenious use of this new feature is for users who bridge their wireless network and wired networks. One may use a trunk interface to assign the IP address of a laptop. The trunk interface then in turn uses the ethernet interface of the laptop as master, and the wireless interface as the failover port. Unplugging the laptop to go sit in the breeze on the porch permits no connections to be reset, while returning to plugin the wired network permits a download from a local server to greatly increase in speed.
Servers will likely want round-robin which also permits to aggregate bandwidth. This means faster than 100mbit speeds with multiple 100mbit ethernet cards, for example.
With a `super redundant setup' of failover trunking, one can setup a system with 6 nics in each of two machines and several switches that result in a super resilient setup in which no one piece of equipment (including a switch) failing will permit loss of traffic.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (85.194.198.91) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.43.92.127) on
By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) marco@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us
Open source, who needs it?
Comments
By Krunch (80.200.227.67) on http://krunch.servebeer.com/~krunch/
Comments
By Marco Peereboom (67.64.89.177) marco@peereboom.us on http://www.peereboom.us/
Please take your linux tripe elsewhere. We don't care.
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
By Anonymous Coward (69.70.207.240) on
By Shane J Pearson (202.45.125.5) on
Many people who appreciate OpenBSD, appreciate that much thought goes into features well before they are implemented. So that the implementation is done properly. A nice new feature is added to OpenBSD and then some guy has to come in and say "doesn't Linux already do this?". Many people here will be thinking, "who cares", since they have come to appreciate the cleanliness and correctness which OpenBSD strives for.
I know personally for myself and I would imagine others would also feel, that this appreciation is all the stronger because many would have come to OpenBSD from the quirky nature of Linux.
I don't mind how long OpenBSD might take to get some feature, because I know when it gets it, it will be functional, secure and concise in both code and documentation.
By Anonymous Coward (24.84.57.120) on
What's your point?
By Anonymous Coward (211.30.160.26) on
Take your Linux PR crap and shove it up a Windows user, they need it more.
This is a OpenBSD place, we don't need your crap here. Nor do we care.
I use all sorts of OSs, and I always use OpenBSD for firewalls and any other application where security is primary.
This trunking feature seems interesting.
By geek00L (60.50.204.156) on
By pete gilman (147.249.60.21) on
"Ingenious? true, but has not this been in Linux a long time.. "
maybe, but in openbsd it's:
a) properly implemented
b) truly free and open
c) well-documented with a man page written by someone who speaks english properly
hint: openbsd users aren't interested in who does it first, we're interested in who does it right.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (193.110.152.115) on
Thanks for me (poor french people)....an for 90% of the world !
By Matthias Kilian (84.134.44.220) on
I thought the proper way to disrupt a network connection were to cut the cable using an axe. At least there are rumours that certain OpenBSD developers tend to prefer this method ;-)
Comments
By Wim (194.78.167.231) wim@kd85.com on http://kd85.com/notforsale.html
Comments
By suspect (81.84.108.22) on
By Matthias Kilian (84.134.65.207) on
Oh, and Wim: what about selling hardware network disruption tools with nice OpenBSD logos at booths next year?
By Anonymous Coward (66.12.209.210) on
By Chad Loder (216.239.134.34) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (24.84.57.120) on
By marklar (203.26.16.67) on
Cisco uses:
Etherchannel = multiple physical ports, Trunk = multiple vlans
Everyone else:
Trunk = multiple physical ports, ? = multiple vlans
Comments
By Booms (24.141.158.193) on
Does anyone know if this new feature is standards compliant? How does traffic make it back to the OpenBSD box from the switch - is there a shared MAC on both interfaces? Is your speed inbound to the system limited by a single link, or will the switch balance traffic back to the box over both links as well?
Lots of questions, but definitely a useful feature, and will be very handy for many applications.
Comments
By djm@ (203.217.30.86) on
Comments
By Jason Wright (65.202.219.66) jason@thought.net on http://www.thought.net/jason/
By Krunch (80.200.227.67) on http://krunch.servebeer.com/~krunch/
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
By Anonymous Coward (81.163.130.151) on
By Jim (68.250.26.213) on
Comments
By corentin (88.136.45.3) on
By Anonymous Coward (219.109.232.83) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (219.109.232.83) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.106.232.57) on
By Anonymous Coward (68.106.232.57) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.74.206) on
Comments
By cameronsto (71.56.12.90) on www.5tokes.com
-cameron
By Anonymous Coward (213.164.101.50) on
...
The following example uses an active failover trunk to set up roaming between wired and wireless networks using two network devices. Whenever the wired master interface is unplugged, the wireless failover device will be used:
# ifconfig em0 up
# ifconfig ath0 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 nwid my_net
# ifconfig trunk0 trunkproto failover trunkport em0 trunkport ath0 \
> 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
...
where it is indicated which one interface is the master? by the wording it seems to be em0, but OTOH may be it is ath0? or is it always the first interface given to the ifconfig? if so, it should be said explicitly, no? the man page for ifconfig is no help in this department also...