Comment 23 for bug 1853638

We have narrowed it down to a flaw in a specific configuration setting
on this NIC, so we're comparing the good and bad configurations now.

Primary port: enp94s0f0
Secondary port: enp94s0f1d1

A] Good config for fault-tolerance (active-backup) bonding mode:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primary port = active interface; Secondary port = backup

B] Bad config for fault-tolerance (active-backup) bonding mode:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primary port = backup interface; Secondary port = active

We are consistently able to reproduce a drop rate difference
with UDP pkts, for the above good/bad cases:

Good Case UDP MTR Test Result
---------------------------------
mtr --no-dns --report --report-cycles 60 --udp -s 1428 $DEST
Start: 2020-02-10T10:14:01+0000
HOST: hostname Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
  1.|-- nn.nn.nnn.nnn 0.0% 60 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0

Bad Case UDP MTR Test Result
-------------------------------
mtr --no-dns --report --report-cycles 60 --udp -s 1428 $DEST
Start: 2020-02-10T14:10:52+0000
HOST: hostname Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
  1.|-- nn.nn.nnn.nnn 8.3% 60 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0