Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:39:56 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Tony Landells <ahl@austclear.com.au> Cc: Joshua Goodall <joshua@roughtrade.net>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: distributed natd Message-ID: <20010813163956.A1119@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <200108122306.JAA21903@tungsten.austclear.com.au>; from ahl@austclear.com.au on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:06:25AM %2B1000 References: <joshua@roughtrade.net> <200108122306.JAA21903@tungsten.austclear.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:06:25AM +1000, Tony Landells wrote: > joshua@roughtrade.net said: > > If you want to do failover between two NAT gateways, you can avoid > > reinventing much of the high-availability wheel with the net/vrrp port > > and taking things from there. VRRP was defined specifically to support > > router failover. Perhaps you can piggyback state onto the > > advertisements? > > Last time I checked on VRRP, it was in a questionable legal state > due to protests by Cisco that it (sort of) infringed on HSRP--has > that changed? > > I don't really want to build a solution on technology that may get > yanked suddenly... I think the legal issues with the net/vrrp port have been solved, however another problem has crept up: the port maintainer now thinks that this port does not really implement the relevant RFC's correctly, so the port was marked FORBIDDEN, and the maintainer is working on his own version. G'luck, Peter -- If this sentence didn't exist, somebody would have invented it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010813163956.A1119>