Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:27:10 +0100 From: Daniel Gerzo <danger@freebsd.org> To: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Networking - CARP interfaces Message-ID: <576e36f56ac928be2a5ecb651e034af8@rulez.sk> In-Reply-To: <4DF7CC21.6040500@comcast.net> References: <4DF72488.6050806@my.gd> <4DF793B5.903@my.gd> <4DF79B72.2090805@comcast.net> <99A75196-BE3C-466C-9B0B-CF874C1287B5@my.gd> <4DF7CC21.6040500@comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:01:21 -0400, Steve Polyack wrote: >>>> >>>> I'll just have to adapt and ensure they have the same IP addresses >>>> then. >>> I have a suspicion that the important part may be the number of IP >>> addresses on the CARP interface. If CARP sends an advertisement from >>> each IP alias on a CARP interface, then I think that would explain >>> what you are seeing - and also possibly give you a workaround by >>> adding two more bogus IPs on your primary datacenter firewalls (where >>> IPs W and Z are normally missing). >>> >>> - Steve >>> >> I'll give it a try, although I think in a scenario where the carp >> interfaces have the same number of IPs and these IPs differ, both >> interfaces will claim mastership. >> >> Will post results. > > Now that I look at the spec, it looks like both the count and the > addresses themselves are provided in VRRP packets. CARP likely does > the same. I can't speak for whether these things are considered > along > with the VHID and password, but it's worth a shot. I think you are > correct, though. CARP does the same and should you have different IP addresses on the master/backup machines they will misbehave. I think the way to solve this issue is to split the two other IP addresses onto a separate carpN interface... -- Kind regards Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?576e36f56ac928be2a5ecb651e034af8>