>> Isn't Cisco's FEC proprietary?
> I'm not certain about that, though I do know it's been implemented by
> a number of vendors [...]

At one point in the past I worked for a site that had an Auspex.  They
did EtherChannel, though for legal reasons they couldn't call it that;
they called it, I think, EtherBand.

Now, it's possible that the person I heard this from had it wrong.  But
the story I heard was that it was just multiple interfaces all using
the same MAC address and all connected to the same peer, and you could
send a packet over whichever one looked most convenient.

I started on implementing it for the NetBSD we were running at the
time (I'd managed to introduce two or three NetBSD machines, one of
which was an Alpha that was our main backup server), but never got to
the point of having all the interfaces with the same MAC address.  I
did get a loadshare output interface written, but it's basically
untested.  (Anyone who wants is, of course, welcome to a copy.)

Whether this is of any use today, with _Fast_ EtherChannel (if that's
different from just doing EtherChannel over 100baseT/100baseTX), I
wouldn't know.  For all I know I may have been misinformed about what
EtherChannel/EtherBand amounted to; the person I spoke with seemed to
know what he was talking about, but we all make mistakes.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B