[pve-devel] PATCH: Add support for bridges with more than one physical link.

[Andrew Thrift]

While this is a very neat way to load balance vlan traffic, it could be
dangerous.

You are effectively allowing users to create a loop. Unless they have their
switches and spanning tree configured correctly upstream of the host, they
could create a large broadcast storm on their network, likely knocking out
other hosts and switches control planes.

It is the same as looping a cable between two ports on a switch that does
not have edge-safeguard functionality.

Just my 2c.




On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Ruiz <pablo.ruiz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In our proxmox cluster, each node has two bond interfaces, and each bond
> interface connects to and independent switch. This allows us to enable
> MSTP/PVSTP+ and thus load share traffic on different vlans across switches.
>
>                                   +==========+
>                                    |  SWITCH-A  |---,
>                                   +==========+   |
>       +=======+                   |                 |
>       |               |-----(bond1)--´                 |
> -----|  Node-X  |                                  (trunk)
>       |               |-----(bond2)--,                 |
>       +=======+                   |                 |
>                                   +==========+   |
>                                    |  SWITCH-B  |---´
>                                   +==========+
>
> In this setup, we have a couple of vlans (iSCSI-A & iSCSI-B) each which
> has been priorized (by means of MSTP/PVST) on each switch. Also, proxmox's
> internal (software) bridges have STP disabled (so they do not conflict with
> MSTP's traffic). With this setup we are able to achieve full-redundant
> network interconnects, while at the same time using both links/bonds for
> iSCSI traffic (with multipath+round-robin).
>
> However, proxmox's current code doesnt allow bridges with more than one
> physical interface, something we had to apply an small enhacement to
> proxmox in order to setup our cluster as stated.
>
> We would like to have this enhacement merged into proxmox, and so I've
> read about proxmox development policies, etc. And as stated here is the
> link containing a diff format patch:
> https://github.com/pruiz/pve-common/commit/ce0173a1079e4fc8bb08d9eebd1df71f0f8dc3fe.diff aswell
> as the prettified diff from github:
> https://github.com/pruiz/pve-common/commit/ce0173a1079e4fc8bb08d9eebd1df71f0f8dc3fe
>
> This code has been in production for little more than a month with no
> issues. But, please let me know what maybe missing and/or what amendments
> needs to be done in order for this patch to be accepted into proxmox.
>
> Best regards,
> Pablo
>
> PD: I'll be sending the signed contribution aggrement by tomorrow, as soon
> as I get to my office. As I hope to send another contribution regarding ZFS
> plugin next.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
> http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/attachments/20140212/5d8b9ff2/attachment.htm>