Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:23 +0000 From: Dima Dorfman <dd@freebsd.org> To: Michael DeMan <michael@staff.openaccess.org> Cc: Bart Van Kerckhove <bart@it-ss.be>, "freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OT - Quagga/CARP Message-ID: <20060325092123.GB5468@trit.org> In-Reply-To: <C9011224-BE2F-4946-A90A-60C7A48D080E@staff.openaccess.org> References: <C935A1DF-4F65-4D5A-991B-B8A6C7E7DE24@staff.openaccess.org> <014e01c64928$6107abd0$020b000a@bartwrkstxp> <20060316193740.GE11850@spc.org> <C9011224-BE2F-4946-A90A-60C7A48D080E@staff.openaccess.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael DeMan <michael@staff.openaccess.org> 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 If one of the links fails (any condition that causes the physical interface to be down), the routes are withdrawn, the other box takes over the VIP, and the first box installs the OSPF route.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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060325092123.GB5468>