From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 25 09:21:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06E116A401 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dd@freebsd.org) Received: from charade.trit.org (charade.trit.org [65.19.139.44]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC2143D48 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dd@freebsd.org) Received: from maverick.trit.org (maverick.trit.org [IPv6:2001:4830:2381:2062:212:f0ff:fe4c:896a]) by charade.trit.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D50D1AF4F8; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from maverick.trit.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maverick.trit.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2P9LQf9084440; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:26 GMT (envelope-from dd@freebsd.org) Received: (from dima@localhost) by maverick.trit.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k2P9LN94084436; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:23 GMT (envelope-from dd@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: maverick.trit.org: dima set sender to dd@freebsd.org using -f Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:23 +0000 From: Dima Dorfman To: Michael DeMan Message-ID: <20060325092123.GB5468@trit.org> References: <014e01c64928$6107abd0$020b000a@bartwrkstxp> <20060316193740.GE11850@spc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="azLHFNyN32YCQGCU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: 69FAE582 (https://www.trit.org/~dima/dima.asc) X-PGP-Fingerprint: B340 8338 7DA3 4D61 7632 098E 0730 055B 69FA E582 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: Bart Van Kerckhove , "freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: OT - Quagga/CARP X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:28 -0000 --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael DeMan wrote: > Anyway, thanks very much for the information. I'm going to have to =20 > figure out some kind of workaround on my architecture. In the worst =20 > case, I can shut off OSPF on the edge routers and use static routes =20 > upstream and OSPF from there, but that is going to be a real =20 > nightmare for network maintenance over the long haul. You're talking about using CARP and OSPF on the edge routers, right? Can you explain a little more why CARP and zebra/ospfd don't play well together? I understand the problem about having two copies of the same route in the FIB, but I don't think it should prevent redundancy from working. I am planning to deploy FreeBSD-based access routers in the near future, and I'd like to have an idea of what issues I'll be facing. The scenario I have in mind is two FreeBSD boxes connected to the rest of the network on one side and clients (using carp) on the other. CARP is supposed to protect the client against one of the routers failing. I tried this on some test boxes today, and it looks like it should work. Both boxes are configured as OSPF neighbors and share a CARP vhid. When both links are up, each router has a route through the physical interface (it also sees the OSPF route, but the connected route is better). If one of the links fails (any condition that causes the physical interface to be down), the routes are withdrawn, the other box takes over the VIP, and the first box installs the OSPF route. Everything is still reachable. Am I missing an obvious problem or a case where this doesn't work? --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFEJQuTBzAFW2n65YIRArdVAJ0VspzUh5lLTGww+1/C1JJINCmDrQCfapNQ 4v6sBjIGlGlELHZT1gl4Mik= =3VrT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU--