Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:24:22 -0700 From: jd1008 <jd1008@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible CARP routing issue Message-ID: <54757216.5090502@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CABNwDi0LiEueW%2BU9jypPGvtSxYqShSLZZNnpT1b1oRc-f=DTZA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABNwDi0LiEueW%2BU9jypPGvtSxYqShSLZZNnpT1b1oRc-f=DTZA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/25/2014 10:46 PM, Riaan Kruger wrote: > It seems that in some circumstances routing is not playing well with CARP. > We have the following scenario. > > Device A > --------- > 192.168.1.10 > > Router: > ------- > 10.0.0.1 > > Device B > -------- > Interface 1 Virtual IP (CARP): 172.16.1.3 > Interface 1 Real IP: 172.16.1.2 > > Routing table of device B: > 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 > 192.168.1.0 10.0.0.1 > etc ... > > When Device A pings the Real IP of Device B (172.16.1.2) we see the > following ARP request packet: > ARP request who has 192.168.1.10 tell 172.16.1.3 > > In other words pinging the real IP causes the Virtual IP to ask for the MAC > address of the pinging device, even though they are not in the same subnet > and there is a default route. Pinging the virtual IP does not induce this > ARP request and the ping is successful. > When deleting the second route from the routing table above the ARP request > is not sent. > I know the second route is superfluous but it is put there by third party > software. > > The real issue is why this behavior happens with CARP. Is it an indication > of some underlying problem? > > > Riaan > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Did you enable forwarding?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54757216.5090502>