Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:53:35 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: Tom Judge <tom@tomjudge.com>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Spurious error from i[pf]_carp Message-ID: <4764851F.1000304@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200712142030.14728.max@love2party.net> References: <47628E11.7030803@tomjudge.com> <4762AC1E.3030101@FreeBSD.org> <200712142030.14728.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Max Laier wrote: > Alternatively you could change IPPROTO_CARP in netinet/in.h to another > unused protocol number. This is really the preferred way of dealing with > mixed CARP and VRRP environments as the CARP packets might in turn > irritate the VRRP routers, too. > This sounds like a common use case. Perhaps there is motivation for making the protocol number used by CARP a loader tunable? [I'd really like it if we had a kernel API for adding the virtual MAC addresses to ifnet too, then again I'd like the cheat for infinite chocolate fudge sundaes in life, bed and breakfast at The Savoy with my choice of actress, etc] > /* no comment */ > No disrespect to anyone intended, just that CARP does duplicate the functionality of VRRP. It's worth reiterating that this is what happens when software patents are allowed to creep in to the nuts and bolts of the operational Internet -- and thus, CARP was born, and thus Tom runs into the issue he has seen. later BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4764851F.1000304>