Re: Is agr broken?

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:11:30 +0000
    From:        Mike Pumford <mpumford%mudcovered.org.uk@localhost>
    Message-ID:  <b41ef09a-ef11-0828-1363-10d56c1d3a91%mudcovered.org.uk@localhost>

  | In LACP the frame distribution is determined by a hash algorithm not 
  | link capacity.

Yes, that makes sense, avoids re-ordering packets belonging to one TCP
connection by always keeping them on the same link.

Link capacity would be a dreadful metric in any case (I was going to comment
on that, but decided I didn't know nearly enough, so refrained) - if keeping
the links equally busy was a goal (rather than maximizing overall end to end
performance, which avoiding reordering does) then queue lengths (bytes) would
be what to use.

Note: all I know about this is what I saw from a grep of the sources when
I was looking to see just what agr was looking for from its components.
The rest was all just guesswork - but it seemed intuitive to me that if
agr was demanding a non-zero speed from its components, that we just
give it one .. and from what Bertrand said, that appears to have worked.

kre