Reverted via https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/3177

https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/3177

Using igb.EEE=0 or EEE=0 on the kernel commandline has no effect

My best bet would be an issue with reading back the EEE registers of the Realtek r8169 driver.

In T6162#180836, @Apachez wrote:

In T6162#180827, @ErnyTech wrote:

In T6162#180826, @Apachez wrote:

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

This is up to Intel as far as I know

Well sure but did you file a case and send the commit to Intel aswell?

In T6162#180827, @ErnyTech wrote:

In T6162#180826, @Apachez wrote:

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

This is up to Intel as far as I know

https://github.com/vyos/vyos-build/pull/540

In T6162#180826, @Apachez wrote:

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

That is that this commit goes into upstream to both Linux kernel and Intel out-of-tree driver (in case the later is missing this support)?

Wouldnt it be better if the same commit goes to Intel to be included with the out-of-tree driver which generally have better featuresupport than the in-tree driver which seems to be somewhat crippled?

https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/3173

Thanks for your reply.
But I have some questions about this situation.
Because it is something different with I knew "version meaning".

Output for a standard check with section ['nat'] and for the test case above, with debug logging on; changes are correctly mirrored on secondary node:

Tags show the code base at the step where the tag was added.
But binary can be changed since this time. For the same reason, you will not be able to build 1.1.8 or 1.2.1, etc. exactly with those binary that were on the step of tagging.
Close it as wonfix.

https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/3169

And remove set protocols static route xxx.xxx.0.0/0 interface pppoe0 unless you use set interfaces pppoe pppoe0 no-default-route.

Note that the subtask T6146 is useful in itself, as a modernization of the legacy tool priority.pl, but manual ordering of config-sync sections to address this issue is fragile, given the subtleties (== design constraints) of the legacy commit algorithm (cf. T5492). It is preferable to hand the full commit proposal of the primary node to the secondary node, and allow the underlying configsession to manage priority ordering --- this may be easy to do with a simple refactor in the post-commit hook and (if needed) adjustment in the http-api request handler.